[Name of the Writer]
[Name of the Institution]
In the case of Kansas vs. Dinh Loc Ta, the charges were aroused on the date of 19th July 2009. Dinh Loc Ta was accused of sexually harassing the two girls aged 2 years and 3 years by touching them lewdly. The allegations were made by the prosecution that Ta first introduced himself to the mothers of the girls had touched the girls in the presence of their mothers on their faces, hands, legs, and hairs outside the premise of the movie theater. Ta admitted readily to the law enforcement agency that he has the sexual urge of having sex with the children. He was then arrested by the law enforcement agency, prosecuted and convicted in the court by the jury of "aggravated indecent liberties with a child." The jury in their sentencing, orders to incarcerate him for the period of 25 years. In the supreme court of the state, Ta appealed claiming that the motion of acquittal that was passed by him was not granted by the trial court should have to be granted. According to Ta, the trial court had not established the case of prima facie because the commission of the criminal act is not been proved which is required by the law.
In the presentation of the case in the Supreme Court of Kansas, Ta said that he was not given the opportunity to pass his motion of acquittal. According to him, the State is unable to provide any evidence of his touching the girls lewdly and only incarcerated him on the charges of intention. Although in his statement to the police, he told them that he thinks him as a danger when they interrogated him against the possible misconduct. But he argued later in the Supreme Court that there is no proof that is provided by the state of any lewd touching of the girls. Also according to Ta, the error is committed by the Judge of the trial court because the state is providing the elements in combination not looking them individually. Therefore he wants his motion of acquittal to be passed under the umbrella of 14th Amendment where the factual evidence standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" should be looked upon.
In "lewd fondling or touching", the term means that if touching or fondling is done in a way that undermines victim's moral which would be evidently offensive so clearly that the sense of morality is questioned of that reasonable person. Also if the intent of the person is specific which is in accordance for him in fulfilling his or the victim sexual urges. Lewd touching or fondling is not specific in making only the contact with the sexual organ. This definition is specifically taken from the decision of the court in the "State v. Wells" decision. Also in addition to the given definition of the term lewd, the focus is placed on the intent of the defendant and the evidence of the child undermined moral is clearly not been noted. Basically, the trial court judge takes the two things into the consideration at the same time, for example, it looks on to the confession that the defendant made in the custody of the law enforcement with linking it to the case of touching the child which is a separate entity.
Therefore, one cannot be punished simply for having a criminal thought as happens in the case of United States v. Shabani. That is why in the case of the Ta, the touching cannot be said to be sexually unchaste that can outrage the reasonable person moral sense. The Supreme Court of Kansas ruled out the judgment made by the trial court decision and made the case reversed.
Schubert, F. A. (2011). Introduction to law and the legal system. Cengage Learning.
Useful LinksFree Essays About Blog
If you have any queries please write to us
Join our mailing list
@ All Rights Reserved 2023 email@example.com