Cargando…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Ohio Court of Appeals; 147 Ohio App. 3d 43. Datos: https://static.case.law/ohio-app-3d/147/cases/0043-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Morton, 147 Ohio App. 3d 43 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002) Each party claims that the other party started the fight; defendant says the victim approached him in the living room with a shotgun in an attempt to rob him, and the victim claims he tried to eject the defendant from the apartment and the defendant attacked him. {¶ 4} Both sides agree that the fight was particularly brutal. The victim testified that after defendant had inflicted serious injuries to him, he got a shotgun from his bedroom to scare him off. Instead of scaring him off with the gun, the victim suffered further serious injuries, and defendant gained control of the gun. When the police arrived, they discovered defendant holding the shotgun, standing over the semiconscious victim. {¶ 5} As a result of defendant’s gouging out his eyes, the victim is totally blind. His empty eye sockets were sewn shut. He is also missing part of one ear. The doctors were able to reattach his other ear. {¶ 6} Defendant admits he fought with the victim, but claims he fought in self-defense. He states that he does not remember gouging out the victim’s eyes or biting off his ears. However, while defendant was in the patrol car on the way to the police station, he spit out a portion of the victim’s ear. The defendant incurred a broken nose, bites, and scratches and was treated for his injuries the following day. {¶ 7} Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted. The trial court sentenced him to three years and ten years to…Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Ohio Court of Appeals; 147 Ohio App. 3d 43. Datos: https://static.case.law/ohio-app-3d/147/cases/0043-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Morton, 147 Ohio App. 3d 43 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002) Each party claims that the other party started the fight; defendant says the victim approached him in the living room with a shotgun in an attempt to rob him, and the victim claims he tried to eject the defendant from the apartment and the defendant attacked him. {¶ 4} Both sides agree that the fight was particularly brutal. The victim testified that after defendant had inflicted serious injuries to him, he got a shotgun from his bedroom to scare him off. Instead of scaring him off with the gun, the victim suffered further serious injuries, and defendant gained control of the gun. When the police arrived, they discovered defendant holding the shotgun, standing over the semiconscious victim. {¶ 5} As a result of defendant’s gouging out his eyes, the victim is totally blind. His empty eye sockets were sewn shut. He is also missing part of one ear. The doctors were able to reattach his other ear. {¶ 6} Defendant admits he fought with the victim, but claims he fought in self-defense. He states that he does not remember gouging out the victim’s eyes or biting off his ears. However, while defendant was in the patrol car on the way to the police station, he spit out a portion of the victim’s ear. The defendant incurred a broken nose, bites, and scratches and was treated for his injuries the following day. {¶ 7} Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted. The trial court sentenced him to three years and ten years to…