Nieto Salvador Case Essay
The case presented in R. v. Nieto, 2007 MBCA 82 involved the appellant Her majesty against who went to count in order to appeal against the decision of the lower courts of setting the accused from while he had killed the Mr. Mila in his apartment. This case involved Her majesty the Queen who felt that the accused who had committed the murder against Mr. Mila was wrongfully acquitted of murder while in basis that lacked premises. Her majesty was therefore making an appeal against the accused of was acquitted of charges on second degree murder. In appealing against the case, Her Queen the majesty went to the court of appeal in order to appeal for a ruling made by the high court over the assaults and eventual murder of Mr. Mila by Nieto Salvador.
During the case, the appellant Her majesty raised an issue that the jury who was deemed as having erred in when she was giving her instruction to the jury concerning the self-defense of the accused under s. 34( 2). The appellant further claimed that there was no air of reality in the argument and that the judge erred by using the accused testimony which needed consideration before use.
In this case, the accused was said to have killed Mr. Milas after the duo engaged in a fight that lasted for some time and involved the use of physical objects such as a screwdriver and a metal bar. The accused Mr. Nieto has gone to Mr. Milas house to look for his wife who she suspected to be in Mr. Milas apartment. By gaining entry after identifying himself as a police man, Mr. Nieto managed to enter into Mr. Milas apartment who denied that Ms. Miranda was present in the house. Ms. Miranda was in relationship with Mr. Nieto and was however present in the house. Pushing his way beyond Mr. Mila, M. Nieto saw Miranda seated though Mr. Nieto fought him back. After hitting Mr. Mila on the chest who later went to get a screwdriver to fight Mr. Nieto back.
The fight between Mr. Nieto who used a metal bar to fight Mr. Mila ended with the two injuring one another before Mr. Nieto chocked Mr. Mila who was remained motionless after Mr. Nieto left let go his hands off his neck. In the case as argued by the appellant Her majesty, Mr. Nieto was an aggressor who acted not on self-defense as argued before since he had an opportunity to flee from Mr. Mila. On the second note, the fact Mr. Nieto was assaulted by Mr. Mila unlawfully lacks evidence which is necessary for the assault to be validated as so. Another argument raised by the appellant concerned the fact that there lacked evidence to prove that Mr. Nieto could not manage to leaver Mr. Mila’s residence without the use of deadly force. The lower court had acquitted Mr. Nieto of second degree murder charges which served as a reason for the appellant to make an appeal at the Manitoba court of appeal as Her majesty argued that the judge has erred in presenting the case to the jury who failed to find the accused guilty of the murder of Mr. Mila.
Defense used in the case
The defense that was raised by the accused included that fact; he was not able to get out of Mr., Mila’s house believing that he could hurt him while he turned back. For this reason, the accused chose to remain and fight back. It is for this reason that the accused claimed he acted on self-defense as allowed in the face of apprehension of death (Roach et al. 974).
Success of the defense
The use of the self-defense argument as used by the accused did succeeded since it was argued that both Mr. Mila and Mr. Nieto used weapons when they fought for a long time and thus each one of them had an air of argument reality and engaged in self-defense ( Stewart 88). This argument by the court of appeal did not tilt towards the appellant who had claimed that the accuser acted not in self-fence by his actions, he demonstrated that he was an aggressor.
Ruling of the court
From the case of Her majesty against Mr. Nieto, the court of appeal ruled that while the judge has not erred in mentioning to the jury that there existed an air of reality in the case, the judge did however make an error when she gave instruction that the judges acquit Mr. Nieto on account that they believed him in regard to the component of his defense.
This judgment made the court of appeal to set aside the previous ruling that had found the accused not guilty and thus allowing a new trial to be initiated so as to try Mr. Nieto once more.
I agree with this ruling seeing since the judges error in instructing the jury may have led to the wrong conclusion being made in regard to the testimony he presented in the courts. Indeed such testimonies should be considered (Bacigal 62).