Cory Batey Trial Day 1 Part 2 04/04/16 | Summary and Q&A

4.6K views
April 4, 2016
by
Law&Crime Network
YouTube video player
Cory Batey Trial Day 1 Part 2 04/04/16

TL;DR

The analysis examines a surveillance video and the legal arguments made regarding the use of surveillance in a criminal case.

Install to Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Transcripts

Questions & Answers

Q: What does Tennessee law say about the use of voluntary intoxication as a defense in an aggravated rape case?

Tennessee law, specifically 3911 503 section B, states that voluntary intoxication cannot negate awareness of a risk where recklessness is sufficient to establish a culpable mental state for an offense. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense for aggravated rape or any offense where recklessness is the required mental state.

Q: What case law was cited during the discussion?

The defense cites State versus Fred Chad Clark and State versus Parker. In both cases, the recklessness and intent to aid and abet were discussed, supporting the argument that voluntary intoxication is not a defense in offenses where recklessness is the required mental state.

Q: What was the defense's argument regarding aiding and abetting?

The defense argues that the Tennessee pattern instructions incorporate aiding and abetting in the offense of aggravated rape, requiring intent to aid and abet. Voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to this element and should not be considered a defense.

Q: What was the judge's response to the arguments?

The judge acknowledges the different interpretations of the law and requests time to review the cited case law before making a final determination.

Summary & Key Takeaways

  • The surveillance video shows various individuals entering and exiting a corridor, with the victim and the defendant making multiple appearances.

  • Legal arguments focus on the interpretation of Tennessee law regarding voluntary intoxication as a defense in an aggravated rape case.

  • The defense argues that the defendant's unawareness due to voluntary intoxication is immaterial in proving the offense, while the prosecution argues that recklessness applies to the entire offense and that intent to aid and abet is still necessary.

  • The judge requests time to review cited case law before making a final determination.

Share This Summary 📚

Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Video Transcripts with 1-Click

Download browser extensions on:

Explore More Summaries from Law&Crime Network 📚

Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Video Transcripts with 1-Click

Download browser extensions on: