R v Chavez - [2022] SADC 153

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v CHAVEZ
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 153
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Tracey
20 December 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
The accused is charged with one count of unlawfully choking, suffocating, or strangling another contrary to s 20A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) and one count of aggravated assault – the complainant is the accused’s former partner – Count 1 alleged to have occurred in November or December 2019 and Count 2 in November 2020 – accused entered pleas of not guilty to the offences charged - later entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault in relation to the events arising in relation to Count 1 – accused gave interview to police - application for exclusion of the interview on grounds it was made involuntarily or was unfair - application dismissed - prosecution not established complainant’s respiration stopped, significantly hindered or restricted or that threat made as alleged in Count 2.
Held: Not guilty of Count 1 – guilty of aggravated assault in the alternative.
Not guilty of Count 2.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 20A and 20(3), referred to.
R v Fraser [2020] SADC 127; R v Tracey & Ors (No 5) [2005] SASC 359; R v Azar (1991) 56 A Crim R 414; H, SA v Police [2013] SASCFC 86; Police v Dunstall [2014] SASCFC 85, considered.

R v CHAVEZ
[2022] SADC 153

Herick Omar Bolanos Chavez (the accused) is charged with the offences of unlawfully choking, suffocating or strangling another and aggravated assault. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and elected to be tried by judge alone. The charges are as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawfully Choking, Suffocating or Strangling Another. (Section 20A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Herick Omar Bolanos Chavez between the 1^st day of November 2019 and the 31^st day of December 2019 at Golden Grove, being or having been in a relationship with Monica Guerra, unlawfully choked, suffocated or strangled Monica Guerra, without her consent.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Assault. (Section 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Herick Omar Bolanos Chavez on the 20^th day of November 2020 at Golden Grove, assaulted Monica Guerra.
It is further alleged that Herick Omar Bolanos Chavez committed the offence knowing that Monica Guerra was a person with whom he was, or was formerly, in a relationship.
During the defence opening address the defence conceded that the elements of aggravated assault were met in relation to the allegations made in Count 1 and the accused was re-arraigned for the purpose of pleading guilty to the alternative offence of aggravated assault.
Elements of the offences
Unlawfully choking, suffocating or strangling another
The prosecution listed the elements of the offence which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as follows:
1.At the time…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Chavez

Details

AGLC: R v Chavez [2022] SADC 153
Case: [2022] SADC 153
Decision Date: 20 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chavez involved the appellant, Chavez, who was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Chavez had been charged with assaulting an individual, resulting in injuries that required medical attention. The appellant contested the conviction and sought to appeal the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had adequately proved beyond reasonable doubt that Chavez had intentionally or recklessly caused actual bodily harm to the victim. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of causation and the requirement for the prosecution to establish a direct link between the actions of Chavez and the injuries sustained by the victim. The defence argued that the injuries could have been caused by other factors, and that the prosecution had failed to exclude all reasonable alternatives.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. It was determined that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Chavez's actions were the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the victim. The court found that the trial judge had properly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal standards in reaching the verdict. The appeal was thus dismissed, and Chavez's conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders