Crim273-5
King's Brief: Crim273-5p
Crimes Charged
- Wyden Ferumbras [Murder of Nespite]
Summary of Argument
On or about the 5th of Sojourn in the year 252,Wyden Ferumbras, a Paladin of Erosia, entered the Green Griffon Tavern and joined Nespite, Talsek and Nazon at their table. He slapped Nespite across the face and stood up. Nespite joined him in the Green Griffon hall and an argument ensued. Wyden told Nespite to "drop it" but Nespite continued. Wyden then slew Nespite.
The Justicars wish to show the Court that Wyden had no just cause to slay Nespite, and that he provoked the confrontation which lead to the victim's death.
Legally Significant Facts
- Nespite Taurmintea, a cleric, Talsek Karis, a thief and Nazon, a Necromancer, were sitting at a table in the Green Griffon.
- Nespite stated to those at the table, that Wyden Ferumbras had just threatened to kill her.
- Wyden Ferumbras joined Nespite and the others at the table, and slapped Nespite across the face.
- Wyden stood up and entered the Green Griffon's main hall.
- Nespite and Nazon stood up and followed Wyden.
- Nespite confronted Wyden in the Green Griffon's main hall and a short argument ensued.
- The argument was based around alleged assaults that had occurred between Zimri, a ranger in the Church of Erosia, and Nespite.
- Wyden told Nespite to "Drop it, last warning."
- Nespite made a final comment.
- Wyden attacked and killed Nespite.
- Wyden beheaded and looted the corpse.
Law and Argument
Rex v. Mabelrode Crim195-3j, defines attempted murder as:
- An intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to
- another individual with
- the means to carry out the attempt.
The Justicars wish to prove that Wyden's actions in the Green Griffon Tavern in the Year 252 fit the cited definition of attempted murder, and as those actions lead to the death of Nespite, they result in the perfection of the crime, Murder.
Wyden provoked an altercation with Nespite when he entered into the Green Griffon tavern, sought out her table and slapped her across the face [Evidence 01Talsek] [Evidence 03Nazon]. Such an act of contempt is universally understood to be an insult that may lead to immediate anger on behalf of the person slapped. Instead of retaliating physically, Nespite chose to enter into a brief public argument with Wyden. The argument ended when Wyden slew Nespite.
The Justicars provide the following testimony of a Chronite Thief, Dreth, who witnessed the event [Evidence03]:
| “ | Nespite said, "How many times did you send your lap dog after me, Wyden?"
Wyden replied, "I don't use anyone to do my bidding. I do it myself. If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead" Nespite replied, "Yes... we all know your history, Wyden. The way those you despise tend to disappeared, killed, murdered. Hell, even Erosia closed the church doors for a time." Wyden warned Nespite, "Drop it. Last warning." Nespite replied, "You threaten my life, assault me at a table and then tell me to leave it alone." Wyden drew his sword and slew Nespite after this final comment. |
„ |
The Justicars contend that the accusations levelled by Nespite against Wyden did not constitute an attack on his honor. That he slapped her would suggest that he despised her. That he killed her moments later would indicate that he does murder those he despises, and it is an historical fact that Erosia closed her Church doors for a time.
Further, the final comments Nespite made "You threaten my life, assault me at a table and then tell me to leave it alone." were merely a statement of immediate fact that in no way constituted an insult.
According to Crim195-3j Rex v Mabelrode, ones honor must be violated before the killing of another can be justified:"While the Court held in Bandle that an insult to honor may, under certain circumstances, justify the killing of another, this principle is subject to strict limitations. Mabelrode has introduced no facts upon which the Court could conclude that her honor was even violated."The Justicars also note that continuing a conversation after being warned to "Drop it, last warning" may have in this situation been foolhardy, it does not warrant ones death. Nor should the warning excuse the murderer from facing the full legal consequences of his crime.
Wyden's intent to kill Nespite was made clear when he told her to "Drop it, last warning" as she was arguing with him in the Green Griffon Tavern. When Nespite made a further comment beyond the warning, Wyden drew his sword, engaged her in a physical attack that was so violent and forceful that she died quickly. Wyden had the intent to cause death to Nespite, and the end result, Nespite's death, proves that he had the means to carry it out. For this reason Wyden is guilty of murder.
Conclusion
The Justicars of Bilanx hereby submit that Wyden Ferumbras, the Holy Warder of Erosia be found guilty of the crime of murder against Nespite.
Wyden provoked the Confrontation that lead to Nespite's death and for this reason the Justicars ask that the Court does not mitigate his sentence, but punish him with the full force of the Law.
Respectfully submitted,
Malacasta,
Justicar Lieutenant.
Defense Brief: Crim273-5d
Wyden is charged with the murder of Nespite in the Green Griffon tavern on or about the 5th of Sojourn in the year 252.
The prosecution raises a few interesting points that the defense would like to address in this brief. In the prosecution brief (Crim273-5p), it is stated that Nespite reported to her compatriots at a private table in the tavern that Wyden had threatened her life. The prosecution includes this as a relevant fact of their brief, yet the prosecution fails to substantiate any threats were actually made. The prosecution later states that references to these insubstantiated threats to be "merely a statement of immediate fact". The defense contends that testimony that cannot be validated be inadmissable and asks the court to strike any reference to threats made by my client to the victim based on a lack of evidence or witnesses to that effect. Final circumstances do not lend automatic credence to something that cannot be corroborated.
It has been decreed by Judge Ilan in Crim272-1j
| “ | It is often wise to watch one's words when one is addressing a powerful hegemon, bishop, paladin, or guildmaster. This is not a legal rule though, this is an issue of manners and respect. | „ |
What Judge Ilan succeeded in portraying with this statement was that while a person might have power of great proportions personally, politically or in faith, that person is not entitled to special treatment in the eyes of the law. The statement however that one should be *cautious* when speaking to someone who falls within these categories is extremely telling. It is well known that the Kingdom of Sable and the Empire of Thrace enjoy a hierarchical society of power and politics. Nespite is NOT a recent immigrant, nor can she, an accomplished cleric of the Goddess Loviatar, be, by any degree, considered a novice in the workings of the social order of our civilization. In fact, Sable has been home to Nespite for longer than most adventuring citizens today. That Wyden was, and is still, if not THE, then certainly one of the most formidable adventurers of our time certainly came to absolutely no surprise or shock to Nespite, assuming she is reasonable and capable of logical conclusions.
The defense argues that while Wyden DID in fact slay Nespite, he did offer to Nespite the opportunity to seperate peaceably from the confrontation. In the face of CLEAR and OBVIOUS DANGER to her very life, Nespite instead chose to provoke and further taunt the Paladin of Erosia. The defense does not argue that this is a question of defending honor. The defense instead questions the state of Nespite's mental processes in this circumstance. The defense understands that Nespite is not on trial nor is she required to be answerable to anything for she has suffered unduly on her part. The defense does however find it questionable that with her life in an obviously tenuous position, she continued to berate someone who very clearly is capable of obliterating her. The defense holds that the victim, Nespite, Bishop of Loviatar, knowingly entered into a situation where she would perish, and given the very obvious opportunity to extricate herself, she elected instead to further abrade the situation to the point of her own demise.
Wyden did slay Nespite; however, the defense argues that the victim desired the final, brutal outcome of this circumstance as evidenced by her own actions. The defendant did not enter into the Green Griffon tavern looking to kill Nespite. The defendant did not exhibit any degree of premeditation. He did not look for, plot or stake out any area awaiting to kill Nespite. Instead, he was driven to do the deed by a calculating bishop who worships the Goddess of wisdom and knowingly brought about her own demise.
Judgment: Crim273-5j
Crimes Charged
- Wyden Ferumbras [Murder of Nespite]
Findings of Fact
- On the 5th of Sojourn in the year 252 Wyden killed Nespite.
- This killing followed a history of violence between both of the parties.
- Wyden slapped Nespite in the Tavern
- Nespite defended her honor
- Nespite aggravated the situation by attempting to provoke Wyden into a fight.
- Wyden issued a warning not to continue.
- Nespite pressed the issue further.
Discussion
[Murder of Nespite]
The Justicars dutifully establish every element of the crime of murder one. There is no doubt based on the facts that Wyden killed Nespite with the intent to kill with premeditation and deliberation, that he struck her dead in the tavern and buried her corpse. Without a proper defense or another legal doctrine to excuse the conduct Wyden would be found to be Guilty of this crime.
The doctrine of "parli delicto" is a very narrow doctrine that essentially stops a victim from benefiting from a situation where they played an equal role in bringing about the act. From the Judge's ruling in Rex v. Nazon, et. al Crim238-3j
| “ | a defendant may not be found guilty of a crime where the victim is in a position of equal legal fault. | „ |
This means that if someone invites a crime upon themselves they may not recover in Court for this act. For instance, an adventurer steals the property of a second adventurer, then the second adventurer 'steals' back the property, the first adventurer then attacks the second and is killed. The original criminal can not claim foul where his unclean hands brought about the situation.
Here in this case Nespite had been openly engaging in hostile behavior for a period of great time with Wyden. This time spanned such a great period of time that neither side can offer evidence that establishes when the conflict began. One side says that it began with a conflict where Nespite and one Zimri were at odds, others establish to line of causation at a different point. Important to the matter here is that Wyden offered a clear last chance for Nespite to let the situation drop. It is not certain that Nespite had the opportunity to clearly defend her honor from the slap, it seems the case that the events prior to entry at the tavern brought about the slap.
Nespite responded to an order of this court saying that she would be at the trial to give testimony. Nespite failed to follow the order of the Court. All parties that were ordered to attend the trial in the initial order were given opportunity to make arrangements for alternative deposition (testimony) if they would be unable to attend. Nespite did not take advantage of this opportunity and she did not attend the trial as she responded she would. The court takes this, based on the hostile nature of her response, to mean that she knew she may have offered testimony that would have made her to be less than a victim. Nespite's failure to show must be taken in a light that is most favorable to the Defendant.
There is equal fault here for the killing. One cannot simply demand to be killed and then complain to the Court when that person is killed. Nespite essentially demanded that she be killed and has complained to the Justicars after the incident.
Decision
Murder of Nespite - Not Guilty
Judge Ilan
Footnote
Serious contempt towards the Court will be addressed at the end of Rex v. Wyden, Crim273-6j.
