Not Guilty on domestic battery charge
Johnson County District Court vs. NR: Client charged with Domestic Battery and criminal damage to property, both class B misdemeanors. At trial, client found Not Guilty of battery and Guilty of criminal damage to property. All parties, including defendant, testified at trial. After a thorough cross examination of the arresting officer and the alleged victim, we argued the State had not met its burden of proof that defendant had battered the victim. Specifically, we argued that defendant did not grab her neck as alleged at trial. The photos introduced at trial were not indicative of a battery and no markings were visible on alleged victim's neck or arms. Defendant testified that he in fact grabbed victims arms to restrain her from striking him following heated argument. On cross-examination, the arresting officer blamed the reduced quality of the photos on the department-issued camera that he regularly uses during his investigations of domestic violence. This excuse, in addition to the lack of evidence of abuse, resulted in the Not Guilty ruling. The finding of Guilty to the Destruction of Property charge was based on defendant's admission to throwing the phone on the ground following the argument. Restitution was ordered to the victim for her phone. The end result is that we successfully defended against a battery claim where the evidence did not support the claim. Nonetheless, my client was placed on probation for one year with the right to terminate after 6 months of compliance and completion with probation.
Practice area(s): Criminal Defense
Court: Kansas District