 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Siddiq6/27/2005
In the midst of a fight, Abdul Siddiq shot another man and in the process wounded two bystanders. A jury convicted him of manslaughter and also of second-degree assault for the two unintended victims. Because the second-degree assault statute does not require that Siddiq intentionally assault a specific person, we affirm the assault convictions.
FACTS
During a fistfight that broke out at a party, Abdul Siddiq shot George Jimicum, killing him and accidentally wounding two others - Jennifer Young and Laura Wiggins. As Siddiq fled the scene, he also fired several shots when Sonja Gogo, who saw him shoot Jimicum, confronted him on the roadside. No one was injured in this second incident.
The State charged Siddiq with second-degree murder, three counts of second-degree assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. At trial, Siddiq waived his right to a jury trial as to the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. The rest of the charges were tried by jury. Siddiq defended his shooting of Jimicum as self-defense. He did not testify at the trial.
A jury convicted Siddiq of first-degree manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder, and three counts of second-degree assault. The court convicted him of second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm.
UNINTENDED VICTIMS
Two of the three assault convictions arose from the accidental shooting of Young and Wiggins. The State argued in closing that Siddiq intentionally shot and killed Jimicum. The State conceded that 'little, if any, evidence' existed to show that Siddiq intentionally assaulted Young and Wiggins, but argued for the assault convictions based on transferred intent from the shooting of Jimicum.
Before sentencing, Siddiq moved for a new trial or arrest of judgment. He argued that his assault convictions of Young and Wiggins, which required an intentional shooting of another person, could not stand because his conviction of first-degree manslaughter required only a finding that he recklessly caused Jimicum's death. He appeals from the court's ruling denying his motion.
Although the State characterizes Siddiq's argument as a challenge to inconsistent verdicts, the trial court analyzed it as a challenge to the instructions. The court concluded that the finding of recklessness as to the shooting of Jimicum did not exclude a finding of intent as to the shooting of the other two victims, because a person who acts intentionally also, necessarily, acts recklessly:
I find this, rather, to be an issue of can the jury find a transfer of intent based upon the law of the case that was given to them? And based upon that, they were instructed in Instruction No. 14 that to convict the defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree as charged in count one, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: One, that on or about the 3rd day of August of 2002 the defendant shot George Jimicum; two, that the defendant's conduct was reckless.
And then in Instruction No. 15 it says a person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur, and the disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Recklessness also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.
And then as I've already indicated in Instruction No. 25 it says: An assault is an intentional shooting of another person. It is not necessary that the person shot be the same as the person that the defendant intended to shoot.
Now, this is not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|