Skip to main content

burden of proof

ID
169

Between S.A.J. and S.P.J.

In a pending divorce case, the trial court entered an order for the parties to “refrain from molesting, harassing, besetting, intimidating and/or threatening and carrying out physical or other abuse of the other.”  The wife subsequently accused the husband of sexual molestation and violating the court’s order.  The court explained that “an allegation of sexual molestation in any form is very serious and the onus is on the wife to prove to the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband breached the Order by committing the acts of sexual molestation as alleged.”  The cour

Expediente 07-200123-0306-PE

The public defender is appealing a conviction of sexual assault on behalf of his client. The appeal argues that (1) the facts alleged are imprecise and ambiguous (e.g., how is it possible to restrain someone’s arms while touching them at the same time?) and (2) the sexual contact was consensual because there was no evidence of the victim’s fighting back, she didn’t scream for help, had no injuries or physical signs of assault.

Guerra Abreu, Sentencia núm. 5

The defendant was convicted of assault, violence against women, and domestic violence.  He appealed, arguing that the court lacked sufficient objective evidence for conviction.  The Supreme Court denied the appeal, noting that the lower court did not only consider the victim’s testimony, but also examined medical evidence submitted by the National Institute of Forensic Sciences (Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Forenses).  The medical evidence demonstrated that the victim suffered injuries, that the defendant caused those injuries, and that the victim suffered from battered wom

H.V.N. v. EM-M Defensa-FAA and Others

The plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Ministry of Defense—Argentine Air Force, seeking damages for sexual harassment and workplace persecution because her supervisor made indecent proposals, threatened her employment if she did not accede to his demands, made sexually explicit comments, and impeded her advancement.  The trial court ruled against the plaintiff on the basis that (1) a psychological report indicated that she suffered from “moderate reactive development,” therefore making it impossible to determine the level of fault that corresponded to the alleged hostile co

Kamaze v. State

The appellant was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to 18 years and three years imprisonment, for rape and incest respectively, to run concurrently. He appealed his conviction, claiming that his minor daughter was the only witness to the alleged crime, that the trial judge improperly assumed the complainant was under 18 years old, that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, that his rights to legal representation were not explained, and that the sentences were unreasonable.

People of the Philippines v. Rupal

The appellant was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of raping a 13-year-old girl by dragging her to a nearby farm, raping her and later threatening her with retaliation if she did not stay silent. The appellant appealed, pointing to inconsistencies in the number of times the victim testified as being raped and arguing that the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Peralta Melo v. Fernández Collado, Sentencia núm. 677

The appellant challenged a lower court ruling granting the respondent, his ex-partner, an equitable division of marital assets (bienes de la comunidad de hecho) upon the dissolution of their relationship.  The appellant argued that 1) the court erroneously found the relationship to be a “common law marriage” (unión more uxurio) and 2) regardless of the character of the relationship, the appellant was the sole owner of the assets at issue as the respondent did not work outside the home.  The appellant and the respondent had been in a monogamous, cohabiting relationship for 17 years

Resolución No. 0160-2013, Juicio No. 010-2013

The petitioner filed for divorce, stating that only days after their wedding, the respondent began to subject her to aggressive verbal and psychological abuse that continued via telephone even after he emigrated to the United States.  After the respondent returned to Ecuador, the abuse became physical.  Once he severed a portion of her finger with a knife.  The Provincial Court of Justice of Azuay declared their marriage dissolved.  The respondent appealed, arguing that the court committed legal errors by failing to apply the correct evidentiary standard.  The

Roper v. Jolliffe

Joliffe was granted a temporary ex parte protective order against Roper, with whom she aws in a relationship, following an incident of violence at Roper’s apartment, with a hearing on the matter of the protective order scheduled eight days later. Roper motioned for limited discovery and a jury trial. The jury trial was denied but the limited discovery was granted. The court granted Jolliffe a two year protective order, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Roper was a threat, and ordered Roper to participate in the Batterer’s Intervention and Counselling Program (BIPP).

Subscribe to burden of proof