The case presented for analysis discusses the assault of Samuel Clark by two men, Bubba Hurt and Skeeter Redrum, allegedly on the grounds of jealousy due to the victim’s friendship with Summer Breeze. On August 16, 2016, Clark was pursued and eventually assaulted by two men who were later joined by Clark’s female friend, Summer Breeze, who also attacked the victim. To defend himself, the victim hit one of the perpetrators, Bubba Hurt, in the eye with his umbrella. As a result of the altercation, Clark was badly hurt and rendered unconscious. Both he and Bubba hurt were taken to the hospital, where the latter passed away from the fatal injury to his eye. The other two perpetrators are under arrest and waiting for the court hearing.
To determine what changes to make in the present case, one needs to clarify the definitions of key terms used in the criminal law of the State of Georgia. Indeed, it is apparent that what happened to Clark, the victim was assaulted. However, there needs to be a clear distinction between simple assault, aggravated assault, simple battery, and aggravated battery. Simple assault (O.C.G.A. §16-5-20) is defined as an attempt to cause a violent injury on someone or put them in a situation where they would be at risk of being injured in such a manner. According to Justia (2018), simple assault does not have to include physical touching: it could be just threats. In turn, aggravated assault differs from simple assault by the perpetrator’s intention to murder, rape, or rob (O.C.G.A. §16-5-21). Aggravated assault may involve a deadly weapon or any other object that can cause harm to the victim when used offensively.
Lastly, one needs to draw a line between simple and aggravated battery. A simple battery implies making intentional physical contact or provoking an individual (for example, with insults). It may also imply physically harming another person with a clear intention to do so (O.C.G.A. §16-5-23). A battery becomes aggravated when the injury caused to the victim is serious: it may be loss of a limb, loss of use of a limb, or serious disfigurement (O.C.G.A. §16-5-24).
Based on this information, it is apparent that Clark fell victim to both assault and battery. Hurt’s and Redrum’s intention is not exactly clear from the case description. It seems that they wanted to prevent Clark from seeing Breeze ever again. Whether the assault was intended to threaten the victim or end his life needs to be clarified. However, even if they merely wanted to scare Clark, what they committed against him still classifies as aggravated assault. According to O.C.G.A. §16-5-21, an attack using personal weapons such as hands, fists, and legs becomes aggravated if it results in a serious injury.
From what is known, Clark has been diagnosed with a permanent brain injury. On the same grounds, it is safe to identify the crime as an aggravated battery. As for Summer Breeze, she is likely to be found guilty of the same crimes. Firstly, she used a weapon (her shoe) against the victim. Surely, a shoe is not always considered a deadly weapon; however, it could be a stiletto heel that can leave cuts and open wounds when used offensively. Secondly, her actions must have contributed to the seriousness of his injury.
The final charges depend on several factors such as the accused’s prior criminal history and whether he or she has taken any responsibility for the crime and shows remorse for their actions. Since this information is absent from the case description, it is difficult to say exactly how many years each of the perpetrators will spend in prison. Both aggravated assault and aggravated battery are considered felonies and punished with one to twenty years in prison. The sentences for two separate charges will be summed up, resulting in longer imprisonment. On top of that, aggravated assault and aggravated battery also imply fines and restitution. It should be noted, though, that the case does not contain aggravating circumstances such as assault against a police officer or crime on the grounds of racial or national hatred.
The question arises as to whether Clark will be free of all charges even though his actions led to the eventual death of one of the two perpetrators. According to O.C.G.A. §16-3-23, an individual is justified in using force against another if it is done to defend himself or herself. Causing death or bodily harm to another is justified only if a person reasonably believes that this will prevent death or bodily injury to himself or herself. Based on this description, one may conclude that Clark’s actions were justifiable. Besides, he was not the one to provoke the altercation to use it as an excuse to harm the perpetrator. Nor was the victim committing or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony. Therefore, even though Clark’s self-defence was fatal for one of the perpetrators, he should not be charged with manslaughter.
Reference
Justia. (2018). 2018 Georgia Code. Web.