Love Brief case state v stark Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

delight Brief state v stark - Case Study ExampleProceeding The proceeding bunghole be correctly categorized into multiple counts for the first of these Stark was anchor to be guilty and thus charged to a total of oneness twenty months or ten years. As farthest as the second and third counts are concerned through a bench trail Stark was found guilty and then charged for a duration of ten years with an additional consecutive cardinal three months.Issue There are certain areas of concern as far as this case is concerned. The first line of argument is that of Starks intentions more specifically that of his actions being solely carried erupt with the objective of causing bodily harm. Another issue is that of the courts specified article of faith, which 120 months only for the first count. A question that rises here is whether the sole reason for this specified sentence was ground purely on succeeding(a) dangerousness of Starks actions.Holding The ruling of the case was based pr imarily on the specific dictations by law which holds an individual responsible for his actions, which are intended to do bodily harm to another person, fashioning him guilty of second degree assault. Starks careless behavior and reckless actions that transmit or expose other individuals to HIV do just that.Reasoning Starks conviction was based on the availability of evidence that can easily be concerned as sufficient to demonstrate intent. Testimonies from the victims, Starks neighborhood friends as well as his doctor and nurse all pointed towards his consciously aware reckless behavior and intent to do harm. Stark clearly stated in one of reported conversation I dont care. If Im departure to die, everybodys going to die leaving no room for doubt of his intentions and hence making an appropriate court sentence inevitable.Prior to this case, other cases such as, Commonwealth v. Brown and State v. Haines can be analyzed to come up that similar sentences were given for comparable crimes by