The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to three years and six months in prison for the kidnapping and continuous sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl (BB). AA had been sexually abusing BB once a week since she was 11 years old.
The applicant pleaded guilty before the Circuit Court of Westmoreland for the offence of having sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, in violation of section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was in a serious relationship with the underage girl, but the matter was brought to the attention of the police when the complainant discovered she was pregnant and there was a dispute regarding the defendant’s paternity (tests showed he indeed was the father).
The Guatemalan Penal Code defines parricide as the killing of any ascendant, descendant, spouse, or person with whom the perpetrator has a marital relationship. A conviction for parricide carries a penalty of 25 to 50 years of imprisonment. In cases where the nature of the act, the method of execution, and the underlying motives demonstrate exceptional gravity on the part of the offender, the death penalty may be imposed, as permitted under Guatemalan criminal law.
The Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVJSA) allows New York courts to impose reduced or alternative sentences and to resentence incarcerated individuals, when documented domestic abuse significantly contributed to the offense and a standard sentence would be unduly harsh. Penal Law § 70.45 provides the determinate-sentencing framework that courts may depart from under the Act. Penal Law § 60.1
The First Panel of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF), by majority, denied habeas corpus relief that sought to reclassify the crime of rape of a vulnerable person (Article 217-A of the Penal Code) as the misdemeanor of offensive molestation (Article 65 of the Law of Criminal Misdemeanors, later repealed by Law No. 14,132/2021).
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his romantic partner of eight years and was sentenced to life in prison. On the night of the murder, the appellant first beat his partner in front of her three children. One of children called the police to report the beating, but the police failed to respond to the residence. Following the beating, the appellant left the house, but returned an hour later, broke into the house, and stabbed his partner to death. The appellant then drove his partner to the hospital where he was subsequently arrested.
The appellant threw an accelerant on her husband, followed by a lit candle. She then immediately attempted to douse the flames in water. Her husband died and she was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant attempted to introduce new evidence that she had suffered from Battered Women Syndrome (“BWS”). This evidence was not available during the appellant’s trial because there were no qualified forensic psychiatrists available in Belize. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal on the ground that (1) it was capable of be
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for the attempted murder of his spouse, and the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. On appeal, the appellant claimed that the lower court erred by (1) failing to consider the facts as exposed by the appellant, (2) failing to take into account that the wounds suffered by the victim were not deadly, (3) refusing to consider the “voluntary and timely abandonment of the act”, (4) failing to set out its reasoning in reaching its conclusions as to the events and the injuries suffered by the victim, and (5) imposing
A person who commits murder but does the act in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation is guilty of manslaughter only (Section 213). Provocation is defined to include any wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be likely to deprive an ordinary person of self-control and to induce such a person to assault the person who committed the act or insult (Section 214). Section 230 addresses women who causes the death of their child under the age of 12 months.
The appellant advertised in Korea for families to come to Australia to attend a missionary school. The appellant was responsible for settling those families’ affairs, and they were dependent on him to organize the necessary extensions of visas. Most of the time, the parents spoke no English and their children spoke little English.
