Domestic Violence, Malicious Wounding Charges

[cyjeff]

Cute.

All I have to do is look through every post on DV on this board. Not to mention the time I have spent in a DV women's shelter.

Yeah. I would say that the abuser routinely tries to paint the victim as a liar, as unstable mentally, and as a harpie that drove them to an action that was heinous... but deserved.

No one gives themselves a broken jaw and nose. You simply dont'. Either injury hurts too much to give yourself the second.

So... either you are saying this woman hit herself in the face with a cinderblock or she had help.

I will leave the decision up to you... and the courts.

[Harvey]

no, i get where you're coming from. You just sounded a little bias on a "help" site

[aardvarc]

Might as well get a taste of bias here....it'll be no less present in the arguements of the prosecution and in the minds of a good portion of the jury too. The other aspect of this particular case that hasn't really been touched on is that among the charges is malicious wounding. That's requires some pretty substantial backing, as it has roots in INTENT, as opposed to some lesser crime where the presence of injuries in and of themselves supports the adding of "aggravated" to a charge. If you push someone down, that's battery. If they sustain substantial injury, the charge gets upped. What the prosecution is saying by carefully choosing THIS charge is this: "these injuries are SO intense that we belive they could have ONLY been received due to the actions of the accused who had to put forth considerable effort to inflict those injuries". They're not buying the fall-down-and-go-whoops story either.

[Harvey]

well there is no "among the charges", from what I was told, thats his only charge. I a'm not trying to come off like Im defending a wife beater or an abusive person so dont take it that way. I just wanted more facts than opinions. Also whne you say "substantial backing", i dont know if a statement and a trip to the hospital with no post-medical care afterwards constitutes that. Does it?

[cyjeff]

Believe it or not, what I am saying really isn't opinion.

The injuries sustained and the charges levied do not lend themselves to a "she is crazy and fell down" defense easily.

I was also stating what I stated how I stated it so that it wouldn't be said in front of a judge.

The LAST thing you want to do is belittle the victim in a DV case. That is a really poor idea.

[cdwjava]

well there is no "among the charges", from what I was told, thats his only charge. I a'm not trying to come off like Im defending a wife beater or an abusive person so dont take it that way. I just wanted more facts than opinions. Also whne you say "substantial backing", i dont know if a statement and a trip to the hospital with no post-medical care afterwards constitutes that. Does it?

The prosecution will have the doctor's notes, the doctor's expert opinion, statements from the medical staff as to what the woman said to them as to how she obtained the injuries, whether the male was present at the E/R or in the room at the time, the demeanor of any parties involved, X-Rays, blood draws, and anything else they can dig up. The medical reports will be rather easy to validate whether the tale she spun to the medical staff can be validated by the injuries. And if the DA goes the extra mile, they will have an expert review the medical record from that visit to affirm or refute the claim it was self-inflicted in some way.

If the DA is going for "malicious wounding", it's very serious and chances are excellent they already have the validation to substantiate the charge.

Here is the crime in Virginia:

§ 18.2-51.2. Aggravated malicious wounding; penalty.

A. If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other person, or by any means causes bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony if the victim is thereby severely injured and is caused to suffer permanent and significant physical impairment.

B. If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other woman who is pregnant, or by any other means causes bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill the pregnant woman or to cause the involuntary termination of her pregnancy, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony if the victim is thereby severely injured and is caused to suffer permanent and significant physical impairment.

C. For purposes of this section, the involuntary termination of a woman's pregnancy shall be deemed a severe injury and a permanent and significant physical impairment.

(1986, c. 460; 1991, c. 670; 1997, c. 709.)

- Carl

[Harvey]

Ok great, thanks for the information. You guys have been very helpful. And is Virginia the same as other states?

[cdwjava]

Ok great, thanks for the information. You guys have been very helpful. And is Virginia the same as other states?

Probably not.

What state ARE you in?

When I looked up the section, VA was just the most prominent when I Googled the term.

- Carl

[Harvey]

Well, you guys were completely wrong. My brother had gotten the case dismissed. For a site that claims "expert law", you were pretty disappointing.

I think you guys would do a much better service to the community who visits you here if you weren't so biased in your opinions of others. Going through your forums, you pretty much have a condescending "staff" here and offer people one-sided views.These people come to you for help, yet you often tell them, "There's no way out.", "It's highly unlikely that 'this' would happen." or even "Your husband is lying."

But thats just MY opinion. Take care and maybe if you switch it up a little bit, you'd get a more loyal following of members.

[cdwjava]

Well, you guys were completely wrong. My brother had gotten the case dismissed. For a site that claims "expert law", you were pretty disappointing.

First, I doubt the case was "dismissed". That requires a judge to find that the state had not met its burden of proof or that the matter be dismissed for some other legal insufficiency (and, generally, the state can re-file the charges if that happens). More likely, the DA chose not to prosecute ... and this can be for any number of reasons - none of which any of us are privy to (just as none of us were privy to the strength or weaknesses inherent in the state's case to begin with). And, of course, the DA can likely still choose to re-file should the circumstances change.

The reasons for the dismissal or the DA prosecuting the case may have nothing at all to do with a belief that the victim was truly nuts, and more to do with the ability of the state to successfully prosecute the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The state often drops the case if the victim decided to recant or change her mind ... if that is what happened, or she became otherwise compromised, then the case would have been untenable.

- Carl