QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether Kaleigh Cyprus committed transfer intent with respect to Jack pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-203(B)(1) and State v. Ramirez . The phone was thrown towards another person involve, identified as Helena. In result it ended up hitting Jack
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes, Kaleigh did commit assault because her intention was to throw the phone to Helena and with respect to Jack, she was not intentionally throwing the phone at him. Since Jack ended up sitting in that location and turning his head it resulted in the phone hitting him. The actual result of that incident was that another person was injured than intended and that is relevant.
FACTS
This Incident occurred on September 1, 2016 in the Sunnyville’s High School cafeteria …show more content…
Ramirez case concluded on September 20, 1984 when the appellant was convicted of intentionally or knowingly abusing a child which could have led to a serious injury. Transfer intent was applied in this situation. It went under a class 4 felony under A.R.S.s 13-3623 (c) (1). The Incident occurred on October 2, 1983 Francisco and Patricia were in an argument and when in the heat of the moment he had punched the wall. Ramirez was mad and intended to hit his girlfriend. That was then followed by Patricia trying to call the police and that was when Francisco took the phone and broke and “threw a hit” hitting the baby’s face and left on foot claiming he was drunk. When returned back to the house 45 minutes later he stated it was just because of “bad aim’ and he had no intention of hitting the baby just his …show more content…
Ramirez case Francisco Ramirez had “thrown a hit” at the baby but his intention was to hit his girlfriend instead. In State vs. Kayleigh was intent stated. Kayleigh had threw an object which resulted in hitting Jack’s eye and causing permeant damage. Contrast to the case State vs. Ramirez, the hit to the baby resulted in a bruise on his face and remained for a week but suffered no permanent damage. Since the action was done purposefully and knowingly but resulting in a different person getting injured that would classify under a different A.R.S which is A.R.S s. 13-3623. In Kaleigh’s case the person, Jack, that was hit by the object ended up with permanent damage and she would be
Whether Kaleigh Cyprus committed transfer intent with respect to Jack pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-203(B)(1) and State v. Ramirez . The phone was thrown towards another person involve, identified as Helena. In result it ended up hitting Jack
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes, Kaleigh did commit assault because her intention was to throw the phone to Helena and with respect to Jack, she was not intentionally throwing the phone at him. Since Jack ended up sitting in that location and turning his head it resulted in the phone hitting him. The actual result of that incident was that another person was injured than intended and that is relevant.
FACTS
This Incident occurred on September 1, 2016 in the Sunnyville’s High School cafeteria …show more content…
Ramirez case concluded on September 20, 1984 when the appellant was convicted of intentionally or knowingly abusing a child which could have led to a serious injury. Transfer intent was applied in this situation. It went under a class 4 felony under A.R.S.s 13-3623 (c) (1). The Incident occurred on October 2, 1983 Francisco and Patricia were in an argument and when in the heat of the moment he had punched the wall. Ramirez was mad and intended to hit his girlfriend. That was then followed by Patricia trying to call the police and that was when Francisco took the phone and broke and “threw a hit” hitting the baby’s face and left on foot claiming he was drunk. When returned back to the house 45 minutes later he stated it was just because of “bad aim’ and he had no intention of hitting the baby just his …show more content…
Ramirez case Francisco Ramirez had “thrown a hit” at the baby but his intention was to hit his girlfriend instead. In State vs. Kayleigh was intent stated. Kayleigh had threw an object which resulted in hitting Jack’s eye and causing permeant damage. Contrast to the case State vs. Ramirez, the hit to the baby resulted in a bruise on his face and remained for a week but suffered no permanent damage. Since the action was done purposefully and knowingly but resulting in a different person getting injured that would classify under a different A.R.S which is A.R.S s. 13-3623. In Kaleigh’s case the person, Jack, that was hit by the object ended up with permanent damage and she would be