Gregory V Smith Criminal Attorney In Martinsburg

West Virginia has prosecuted and defended more than 4000 serious cases. As an assistant prosecuting attorney, and a public and private criminal defense attorney. Top Criminal attorney Gregory V Smith in Martinsburg wv, has more than 23 years of experience, has worked and won hundreds of cases, and knows his way around the system. Solve your legal problem with one of the best criminal defense lawyers you can find in wv. Robert Frost said, “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” What if Frost was right? Check out criminal attorneys martinsburg wv for e more information

Gregory V Smith, Esq. J.D. criminal attorneys martinsburg wv says: As the rule of law has developed in Tort it has also supported the concept of mutual fray and its effect on self-defense as pointed out in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 69(a) (1965), treats deliberate provocation by words or conduct as a consent to bodily contact. Comment a states in part: Mere provocation by words or conduct, no matter how insulting, does not destroy the privilege of self-defense, even though a reasonable man should realize that the provocation will probably induce the attack. But if the actor actually intends his provocative words or actions to induce an attack, they amount to a challenge to fight, and, as such, to a consent similar to that given in a case of mutual affray. In the case of a fight or affray by mutual consent, each party gives consent to those blows from which he is unable to protect himself. But each consents to the other using such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself against his opponent's attack."criminal lawyers martinsburg wv says:

It should be borne in mind, however, that such evidence is admissible only in mitigation of the punitive damages claimed,

The exponents of the minority rule disclaim any intention of departing from that palladium of peace and order the rule that mere words never justify an assault. Yet if words are permitted to diminish the actual damages resulting from an assault, justification in part or to a degree is effected, no matter that the process is called mitigation instead of justification. If the actual damages committed in an assault be $100.00, but because of provocation the jury is permitted to reduce its verdict to $50.00, then the provocation is in reality a defense to or justification of the injury to the amount of $50.00. If mitigation of the actual damages be permitted at all, then it follows logically that the greater the provocation, the more the mitigation. In case of extreme provocation, does not the minority rule point to a mitigation of all actual damages?

Top criminal attorneys martinsburg wv says: "If a person voluntarily, that is aggressively and willingly, enters into a fight, he cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense unless he first abandons the fight, withdraws from it, and gives notice that he has done so.").State v. Riley, 137 Wash.2d 904, 976 P.2d 624, 627 (1999)

See also 6 Am. Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 62 (1999) See also State v. Smith, 295 S.E.2d 820, 170 W.Va. 654 (W.Va., 1982). Also to be noted that In Fight by Mutual Consent, Mere Fact That One of Parties Seeks Opponent Will Not Prevent Him From Recovering for Injuries Received. (Assault and Battery, 5 C. J. §§ 119, 135.)

Top criminal lawyers martinsburg wv says: The state of the criminal law is that where both parties voluntarily and willing entered into a fight our client will need evidence to support his self-defense instruction that it was a fight by mutual consent and that he had abandoned the fight and was trying to withdraw from it.

About author: Gregory V. Smith, J.D. - Criminal Defense Attorney and for more information about the author, please visit to criminal attorneys wv.