Analysis of Two Supreme Court Cases Essay Example

for instance ‘Master v. Master (1960), 223 Md. 618, 166 A.2d 251’ and Freeman v. ‘Freeman (1921), 238 Mass. 150, 130 N.E. 220’ to show that confidentiality between spouses is broken when the children present during the conversation are old enough to understand what they are talking about. The second conversation took place between the defendant and the wife without any presence of a third party. Justice Simon argued that even if the testimony where the children were present were to be disregarded in the first and the third conversation, the confidentiality privilege in the second conversation cannot be regarded to be confidential since the defendant gave the wife some jewellery that he expected her to wear in public.

The defendant quoted cases such as ‘People v. Fitzgerald (1979), 101 Misc. 2d 712, 422 N.Y.S.2d 309)’ to argue that the court should recognize a privilege that exists between parents and children conversation allowed in Illinois. Justice Simon argued that accepting this additional privilege without application of logic where the child in the case was old enough to understand matters would mean that theses can also be extended to other family members and close friends and it could obstruct justice.

Conclusion

The court ruled against the defendant indicating the wife in this case testified on her own will and they do not violate any confidentiality rights of spouses meaning that they are valid in the case. The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the appellant court and the defendant was found guilty for murder.

State of Maine v. Benner

Facts

The defendant Benner is alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend (victim) on the night of September 9, 1993. The victim changes her

testimony alleging that the defendant did not assault her like she had earlier stated. The testimony of the State Trooper Raymond Bessette who was on duty on that night impeaches the victim’s testimony.

Issue

Should an earlier testimony by a victim that is later changed be used to come up with judgement in the court? The answer is yes.

Rule

The defendant Benner was found guilty for assaulting the victim after a jury trial in Washington Superior Court. He however appealed on accounts of error in giving of instructions as to how the hearsay testimony provided by the state trooper should be considered.

Analysis

The Supreme Judicial Court first defined the fact that the victim had called the state police and complained of being assaulted by the defendant. It was further established that the victim had testified that she actually told the investigating Trooper Bessette that the defendant had struck her on the hand. The victim however indicates that she only said this because she wanted the defendant to leave her house and that he had not actually hit her. The victim testifies that the injury on her hand was as a result of falling when she was drunk. Bessette testimony affirmed what the victim testified about saying that she was struck by the defendant on that day, it however contradicted her last statement on the cause of her injury by indicating that the victim did not seem to be under the influence of alcohol during the time.

The court went further to disregard the defendant’s claims that the cautionary instructions given to the jury prior to Bessette’s testimony was in adequate. The court quotes ‘state v. McCluskie, 611 A.2d 975, 978

(Me.1992’ as a case example to argue that the defendant did not object to the instruction immediately they were given and he only later objected after it affected the judgement. The court argues against the defendant indicating that the instruction given was correct according to the law and the jury had a good understanding of the law. The court further argues against the defendant’s opinions that the evidence presented was not enough to support the judgement where he quotes ‘State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985)’. The court argues against this indicating that there was affirmative evidence supporting the judgement by the jury. The evidence given included the fact that the victim made a complain, the victim and the defendant were in an argument when Bessette arrived where she seemed to be scared and nervous, the defendant was drunk and lastly the testimony by Bessette indicated that the victim was not drunk.

Conclusion

The court concluded by defining that the judgement made in this case was based on circumstantial evidence and a conviction can be grounded on such evidence. The court affirmed that the defendant was in deed guilty of assaulting his girlfriend, affirming with the judgement made by the jury.