Insanity Defense and Drugs

Stu Dents Charges The author of this report has been asked to revisit the case of Stu Dents and the litany of crimes he is alleged to have committed against Uma Opee and in general. There is indeed a laundry list of issues to be seen and charges when it comes to Stu Dents and they will be listed out within this report. Each crime that applies will be listed and there will also be the associated act and detail that supports Stu Dents being charged with the crime.

For all of the crimes listed, there will be an associated state that Stu will be charged within. While Stu and his counsel might be able to make some arguments for some of the crimes, the case against him is rather formidable and there are a number of different charges that definitely apply to Stu and what he allegedly did. Analysis Given the totality of what Stu apparently or obviously did, he would face the following charges. All of these apply to the state of New York.

If the time happened there, that is where the case would be strongest: • Possession of a controlled substance: Charge 1 • This is for the possession of the MDMA. The fact that the victim did not have any drugs in her system further proves that they were not her drugs nor was she involved with the same, at least based on her criminal record as compared to the evidence that is currently available (New York, 2017).

• Possession of a controlled substance: Charge 2 • This is for the possession of the cocaine. The fact that the victim did not have any drugs in her system further proves that they were not her drugs nor was she involved with the same, at least based on her criminal record as compared to the evidence that is currently available (New York, 2017). • Possession of a controlled substance: Charge 3 • This is for the possession of the methamphetamine.

The fact that the victim did not have any drugs in her system further proves that they were not her drugs nor was she involved with the same, at least based on her criminal record as compared to the evidence that is currently available (New York, 2017). • Possession of controlled substance with intent to distribute • The confluence of three different drugs with Stu might indicate that he was dealing drugs or that he could do the same.

If the drugs are individually wrapped and packaged for sale, he should absolutely be charged with this item (New York, 2017). • Kidnapping • A number of things justify these charges including the rope indicating that Uma Opee was tied up and taken against her will. There was evidence of her being tied by her hands and feet. Taking someone against their will and without their permission is, by definition, kidnapping.

If there was ever a point that Uma Opee was taken across state lines, that would make the case entirely different because it would become federal in nature (New York, 2017). • Burglary • The presence of the jewelry in Stu's possession is evidence enough of this. The correlation of that and the apparent crime against Uma sort of seal the deal on that.

The fact that he clearly entered the home of the defendant as part of his other times, that would make it burglary since entering a home to commit a crime is, by definition, burglary (New York, 2017). • Assault on a police officer • Due to him punching the officer when he was arrested. There were clearly witnesses to this crime including the officer himself (New York, 2017). • Invasion of privacy • It is clear that the victim had pictures taken of her that were done without her knowledge.

Even though the woman is dead and thus cannot verify that this was the case, the pictures and other media involved clearly do that for her. As such, a complaining witness is probably not necessary. New York has very stringent laws when it comes to this subject (New York, 2017). • Homicide • It is clear from the evidence that Stu Dents intended to abduct, bind and then kill the defendant. It is also rather clear that.