IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVNAIA, Plaintiff
v. Crim. No. 5678 of 2015
GUETTER BALL, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN THE CONVICTION OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
The Defendant has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, this is from his actions on December 12, 2015. Guetter Ball [hereinafter, “Ball”] was running across a road trying to evade Officer Tray Bagger [hereinafter, “Officer Bagger”] when Bagger was struck by car driving on the road, being driven by Headea Pinn [hereinafter, “Pinn”].
The Commonwealth intends to certify the verdict given to Ball, with the Involuntary Manslaughter. It will use the support from the actual case with Ball because if it was not for his actions, Bagger …show more content…
From this crime, another can see how, with the disregard for the outcomes, that could happen from this and also the way that had they both had outcomes that were unforeseeable to almost anyone. That is why Ball should still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Another case would be the one of Commonwealth v. Nunn; with this case Edward Nunn was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, possessing instruments of crimes, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct. COMMONWEALTH v. NUNN 947 A.2d 756 (PA Super. 2008). The reason that he was charged with involuntary manslaughter is because he shot a pellet gun at the person, a gun not usually intentional to killing someone; this gun killed someone. With this gun killing someone it was found that no reasonable person would have found that killing someone with this gun was unforeseeable.
This also contributes to this case because of the fact that running across the street at two am, and having a car hit Officer Bagger is not as unforeseeable as a pellet gun being able to kill someone. If Nunn was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with shooting someone with a pellet gun then Ball should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for running across a road and having a car that was meant to be on the road hit Officer
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVNAIA, Plaintiff
v. Crim. No. 5678 of 2015
GUETTER BALL, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN THE CONVICTION OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
The Defendant has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, this is from his actions on December 12, 2015. Guetter Ball [hereinafter, “Ball”] was running across a road trying to evade Officer Tray Bagger [hereinafter, “Officer Bagger”] when Bagger was struck by car driving on the road, being driven by Headea Pinn [hereinafter, “Pinn”].
The Commonwealth intends to certify the verdict given to Ball, with the Involuntary Manslaughter. It will use the support from the actual case with Ball because if it was not for his actions, Bagger …show more content…
From this crime, another can see how, with the disregard for the outcomes, that could happen from this and also the way that had they both had outcomes that were unforeseeable to almost anyone. That is why Ball should still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Another case would be the one of Commonwealth v. Nunn; with this case Edward Nunn was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, possessing instruments of crimes, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct. COMMONWEALTH v. NUNN 947 A.2d 756 (PA Super. 2008). The reason that he was charged with involuntary manslaughter is because he shot a pellet gun at the person, a gun not usually intentional to killing someone; this gun killed someone. With this gun killing someone it was found that no reasonable person would have found that killing someone with this gun was unforeseeable.
This also contributes to this case because of the fact that running across the street at two am, and having a car hit Officer Bagger is not as unforeseeable as a pellet gun being able to kill someone. If Nunn was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with shooting someone with a pellet gun then Ball should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for running across a road and having a car that was meant to be on the road hit Officer