Aggravated Assault and Self-Defense in Criminal Justice

Introduction to Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault — occasionally known as felonious assault — is defined as the illegal intent or attempt to harm or cause serious bodily injury to another person, with or without the use of a weapon. Aggravated assault does not require that a serious injury actually occur. If a threat was made and it was reasonable to believe that serious injury could have resulted, aggravated assault can be charged, regardless of whether a weapon was present (Aggravated Assault, 2010).

In the case at hand, Victor Violent was involved in a serious altercation. He was cut with a knife by an assailant, and a .380 automatic pistol was discharged three times, striking Harry Helpless twice and seriously wounding him. As a result of this altercation, Victor Violent has been charged with aggravated assault.

Self-Defense as a Legal Defense

The best defense in this case would be self-defense. Use of force is defensible when a person reasonably believes that it is required for the protection of oneself or another person against the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person may use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Force likely to result in death or great bodily injury is acceptable in self-defense only if an individual reasonably believes that such force is necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm.

In order to be found not guilty of a physical injury-related crime — such as assault and battery or homicide — using the self-defense justification, one must demonstrate legal provocation. Specifically, one must establish that they were in a situation where failing to act in self-defense would most likely have resulted in death, serious injury, or significant property damage (Defense, Self-Defense, 2010). In this case, Victor stated to the police that he had to shoot Harry Helpless because Harry was going to kill him.

The evidence introduced on Victor Violent's behalf would be offered to support his self-defense claim. Any such evidence must comply with the rules governing criminal cases in order to be admissible. The rules of evidence govern how parties attempt to establish at trial what occurred in the past, frequently under disputed circumstances. In the common law system, proof typically comes in the form of witness testimony or testimonial evidence. Evidence may also consist of documentary evidence (Evidence, 2010).

Types of Admissible Evidence

Testimonial evidence is the most fundamental type of evidence and the only kind that does not typically require an additional form of evidence as a precondition for its admissibility. It consists of what is asserted in court at the relevant proceeding by a competent eyewitness (Dicarlo, 2010). Two policies apply specifically to lay witnesses, as opposed to expert witnesses: the firsthand knowledge rule and the opinion rule.

Rule 602 requires that a witness have personal knowledge of the subject matter about which they testify. A witness's apparent uncertainty — expressed through phrases such as "I suppose," "I think," or "I'm not sure" — is not grounds for exclusion, so long as the person had the opportunity to observe. The opinion rule can be difficult to apply because the terms "judgment," "inference," and "conclusion" are used in varying ways in ordinary language. As a matter of policy, witnesses are expected to convey their primary sensory impressions rather than beliefs or inferences drawn from those impressions (Evidence, 2010).

In this case, testimonial evidence would be provided by witnesses at the scene who told police that Victor left the scene carrying a gun, entered a red Honda, and drove approximately one and a half blocks before parking. The key issue is whether this testimony constitutes hearsay. If it is determined that it is not hearsay, it would be admissible.

Real evidence must be authenticated as a precondition to admissibility. The term "real evidence" refers to tangible proof that is directly associated with a case, as distinguished from purely descriptive proof such as a replica — often called demonstrative evidence, though no universally settled terminology exists in this area (Evidence, 2010).

To be admissible, real evidence — like all proof — must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these foundational requirements and confirming relevance, along with any other pertinent elements, is known as "laying a foundation." The significance and materiality of real evidence are usually apparent. Its competency is established by showing that it is, in fact, what it is claimed to be — a process known as authentication (Dicarlo, 2010). In this case, the real evidence would include the gun that Victor Violent took from the scene and the bloody knife found next to Harry Helpless.

Documentary evidence is frequently a form of real evidence. When a document is introduced, it is authenticated in a manner similar to other real evidence — by a person who recognizes it or, less commonly, by someone who can establish a chain of custody. However, because documents contain human language, and owing to the historical development of common law, they present particular challenges not posed by other types of real evidence — most notably when they contain hearsay (Dicarlo, 2010).

Hearsay evidence is proof of a statement made other than by a witness while testifying, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A statement can be expressed in words or through conduct intended as a substitute for words. The first step in any hearsay analysis is determining whether the statement being offered is in fact hearsay. If it is not, the analysis ends. If it is hearsay, the next step is to determine whether it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Because proof of an out-of-court statement used to establish something other than the truth of its content is not hearsay, whether a statement qualifies as hearsay may depend on the purpose for which it is offered. If a statement has a potential hearsay use and a separate non-hearsay use, it is generally admissible subject to a limiting instruction if requested, and subject to the court's discretion to exclude it if the judge finds that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value (Dicarlo, 2010). In this case, the documentary evidence would include witness testimony placing the gun Victor carried from the scene as the weapon used in the crime.

Conclusion: Establishing Self-Defense

Because of the Sixth Amendment, Victor Violent would be guaranteed a speedy trial at which he would be clearly informed of the charges against him. He would also have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testify against him — including the witnesses who were present at the scene and reported to police that he left with the gun in the red Honda.

In this case, it would be critical for the defense to establish that Victor Violent shot Harry Helpless in self-defense because he reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to protect himself against the imminent use of the knife by Harry Helpless. The law provides that a person may use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the particular circumstances. Force likely to result in death or great bodily injury is justifiable in self-defense only if an individual reasonably believes that such force is necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm.

Victor would be justified in shooting Harry if it could be proven that Victor believed Harry's stabbing him would result in great bodily harm. The defense strategy would therefore center on presenting testimonial and real evidence — consistent with the constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments — to support the reasonable belief that Victor acted out of necessity to preserve his own life.