Precedent Setting Case: Joyner, State V. Rhodes

The defendant, Mr. John Smith, is in no way guilty of the alleged assault charges brought to the court by his wife, Mrs. Jane Smith. This case, as so many in the United States court system are, ought to be viewed while keeping past rulings with coinciding facts in mind for the purpose of preserving precedent. Precedent is a core principle of the judicial decision making process that uses past relevant cases as the standard for ruling in future cases with similarities and should be implemented as it produces consistency among rulings. Furthermore, precedent can be appropriately applied in this instance since the men charged with assault in the cases Joyner v. Joyner, State v. Black, and State v. Rhodes all were proven innocent for reasons indistinguishable …show more content…
Joyner as a foundation for judgement, Mr. Smith ought to be cleared from this accusation since he was provoked into striking his wife. When considering the facts of this case, it is known that the couple were having an argument regarding finances and Mr. Smith’s inconsistent employment in front of their son and son’s friend. During this exchange, Mrs. Smith accused her husband of being an alcoholic and causing all of their problems to be worse. Infuriated, Mr. Smith pleaded for his wife to stop saying such offensive things or he would strike her. She proceeded to shout at him and he struck her in the nose, just as he had warned her he would. The court case Joyner v. Joyner, a similar case in which another husband was charged with assault yet was proven innocent, ruled that “the law gives the husband power to use such a degree of force as it is necessary to make the wife behave herself” (Bonsignore, 10). The court further elaborated that if a wife persistently disrespects her husband, and he tells her to stop and she refuses, then the court would see that as justification for his actions. They further reasoned that constant disrespect from the wife will consequently strip the husband of his family’s respect and therefore his ability to govern the family. Since Joyner v. Joyner ruled that a man has a right to protect his role in the government of family if he is provoked by his wife, and Mr. Smith was only attempting to protect his dignity and respect in front of his son, he should be pardoned from these