This case is based upon the crime of a misdemeanor in particular the defendant is accused is faced with a charged of sexual assault. In particular, he is accused to have fondled a child. In light to the accusations, the victim is deemed as a minor as provided for by Section 22.011(c) of the Penal Code. The decision of the court is first of all to rely on the facts of the case, secondly the set laws and thirdly by precedence. All these are vital in the guiding the honorable court in reaching the rightful decision upon the accused as well as delivering justice to the victim.
The facts presented to the court are that there is irrefutable proof of the accused having fondled the victim. Section 22.011 (c) provides that the court is to regard the victim in this as a child. It is also in the courts findings that during the said act, the accused was drinking at the time. The court is also to refer to the mitigation that the accused has no prior criminal charges of a similar offence, rather of driving under the influence. Where the accused is found guilty of such offences, the law provides that they serve a prison term of two to ten years and or a fine of up to $ 10 000.
In light of the above, this court was left without reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence. The accused not only possessed the actus reus, but also possessed the mens rea. Notably as was held in DPP v. Majewski  2 All ER 142, the law has failed to recognize drunkenness as a defense where the intoxication was self-induced. Despite the accused being a first offender in such a crime, his previous driving under the influence conviction proofs a second accusation with intoxication being a factor therein. In light of the above, the accused is thus to serve ten years in jail for the crime of sexual assault against a child.
|Property Law||Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd|