GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #37 *Arrest*

[CookieM]

Snipped for brevity.
Yes... Intent of bodily harm. I think the significant amount of DNA will cover that. I do not think they will have to prove intent of SA.

Let me preface this by saying I do NOT think what I am about to talk about is what happened, but I'm just bringing it up as a question about an aggravated kidnapping charge. From what I understand the key component of AK is an "intent." So like you say here ^^ it could be intent of bodily harm. But let's say someone decides to get into a car with someone else and go to someplace like Denney's at 2 am. They ride over there and the passenger gets out of the car and the driver is still in the driver's seat. The passenger walks behind the car, drops something, and bends down to pick it up. The driver, for whatever reason, maybe realize they parked all cockeyed and reverses the car to adjust. It's dark, they don't see that the passenger has bent down, and they run over the passenger. The driver flips out and panics. Opens the trunk and puts the passenger inside, drives to some remote location, and dumps off the passenger. (Like I said, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE so don't anyone go all ape $hit on here...) This could not be considered AK, right? I mean there was no "intent" to harm when they left with the person, right?
Now I know that a normal person would, of course, explain this horrible accident, but I am just wondering about the AK charge. In this hypothetical case it would have to be something else, right? Something like vehicular manslaughter I think. Anyway, I was just wondering about how LE has to prove intent in an AK case, so I thought I'd bring it up.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Snipped for brevity.
Yes... Intent of bodily harm. I think the significant amount of DNA will cover that. I do not think they will have to prove intent of SA.

The arrest warrant specifically states they believe he intentionally or knowingly kidnapped Christina to violate or abuse sexually.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/12/19/loved-ones-search-allen-for-missing-woman/

ETA link. Last page.

 

[zippixx]

The arrest warrant specifically states they believe he intentionally or knowingly kidnapped Christina to violate or abuse sexually.

The official charge:

(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;

Both are covered in the AK charge.. (P.C. 20.04) (a) (4)

 

[MIKAYOYO]

The official charge:

(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;

Right, got that. Seriously though, read the last page of the arrest warrant where they give reason for AK charge. It specifically says they believe he kidnapped her to sexually assualt her based on being sexually frustrated because SB rejected him. I'm not making this up folks. If I could copy/paste from my Kindle I would.

 

[zippixx]

Right, got that. Seriously though, read the last page of the arrest warrant where they give reason for AK charge. It specifically says they believe he kidnapped her to sexually assualt her based on being sexually frustrated because SB rejected him. I'm not making this up folks. If I could copy/paste from my Kindle I would.

Yes, but I believe that was more for the benefit of the warrant. It seems that the official charge would cover both/either.. (just a guess)

 

[SteveS]

Two possibilities are offered - only one is needed. Lots of latitude there.

"With the information obtained through this investigation, Affiant believes Enrique Arochi Gutierrez committed the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping PC 20.04 on August 30, 2014, in the area of the 5700 block of Legacy Drive at the Shops at Legacy in Plano, Collin County, Texas, when he intentionally or knowingly abducted another person, Christina Marie Morris, with the intent to inflict bodily injury on her or violate or abuse her sexually, against the peace and dignity of the State."

It also needs to be noted that the affidavit would reflect LE's "belief" at the time it was written - but, it only needs to be offered in good faith. IOW, "beliefs" are subject to change, based on further investigation.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Yes, but I believe that was more for the benefit of the warrant. It seems that the official charge would cover both/either.. (just a guess)

I don't know how that works, but it seems if his actual ARREST warrant states they believe he kidnapped her for sexual assault purposes, they would have to touch on that. Again, I have no idea. My point was the original charge lists SA as his intent.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

sexual assault of a child is as heinous sounding as there is for most people. Just like myself and others on this thread, when you hear that and then learn what really happened, the feeling turns more sympathetic to ea and the unjust label.

Whatever happened to statutory rape? That's a more accurate description and people know what it means just from the charge.

this.

 

[catpatrol]

The arrest warrant specifically states they believe he intentionally or knowingly kidnapped Christina to violate or abuse sexually.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/12/19/loved-ones-search-allen-for-missing-woman/

ETA link. Last page.

Im aware of that, but again, I do not think they would need to prove intent of SA for the jury to convict him of the charge. I think they can make a solid case that EA intended to harm Christina, which is what the law says.

 

[catpatrol]

Let me preface this by saying I do NOT think what I am about to talk about is what happened, but I'm just bringing it up as a question about an aggravated kidnapping charge. From what I understand the key component of AK is an "intent." So like you say here ^^ it could be intent of bodily harm. But let's say someone decides to get into a car with someone else and go to someplace like Denney's at 2 am. They ride over there and the passenger gets out of the car and the driver is still in the driver's seat. The passenger walks behind the car, drops something, and bends down to pick it up. The driver, for whatever reason, maybe realize they parked all cockeyed and reverses the car to adjust. It's dark, they don't see that the passenger has bent down, and they run over the passenger. The driver flips out and panics. Opens the trunk and puts the passenger inside, drives to some remote location, and dumps off the passenger. (Like I said, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE so don't anyone go all ape $hit on here...) This could not be considered AK, right? I mean there was no "intent" to harm when they left with the person, right?
Now I know that a normal person would, of course, explain this horrible accident, but I am just wondering about the AK charge. In this hypothetical case it would have to be something else, right? Something like vehicular manslaughter I think. Anyway, I was just wondering about how LE has to prove intent in an AK case, so I thought I'd bring it up.

I couldn't tell you, sounds like it would be a different charge in that scenario. You're probably right about manslaughter, as it sounds like an accident.
I don't think intent has to be something as concrete as a plan laid out in a diary or some sort of declaration to harm someone, so I really don't think the "intent" thing will be as big of an issue as some are making it. JMO.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Im aware of that, but again, I do not think they would need to prove intent of SA for the jury to convict him of the charge. I think they can make a solid case that EA intended to harm Christina, which is what the law says.

Ok, it is my opinion that LE used intent to SA to obtain an arrest warrant. They have her DNA in his trunk so why even mention the SA angle. IMO they would have some 'splainin to do in those regards. The restating of the penal code at the bottom of the last page is I guess their loophole to not have to prove SA when that's what they focused on throughout the reasoning of wanting the arrest warrant in the first place. Agree to disagree. I apparently have difficulties getting my point across.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

I couldn't tell you, sounds like it would be a different charge in that scenario. You're probably right about manslaughter, as it sounds like an accident.
I don't think intent has to be something as concrete as a plan laid out in a diary or some sort of declaration to harm someone, so I really don't think the "intent" thing will be as big of an issue as some are making it. JMO.

Intent is the WHOLE reason for the AGGREVATED part of the charge. Without intent to do one of those 6 things then it's just kidnapping, so yes intent is kind of a big deal. IMO

 

[catpatrol]

Intent is the WHOLE reason for the AGGREVATED part of the charge. Without intent to do one of those 6 things then it's just kidnapping, so yes intent is kind of a big deal. IMO

....lol.... Which is why I keep saying I don't think it will be hard to convince a jury that the person who had Christina in his trunk, bloody, intended to harm her.

 

[catpatrol]

Ok, it is my opinion that LE used intent to SA to obtain an arrest warrant. They have her DNA in his trunk so why even mention the SA angle. IMO they would have some 'splainin to do in those regards. The restating of the penal code at the bottom of the last page is I guess their loophole to not have to prove SA when that's what they focused on throughout the reasoning of wanting the arrest warrant in the first place. Agree to disagree. I apparently have difficulties getting my point across.

Im not saying that won't be or isn't PPD's theory. Never did I say that. I'm saying that won't necessarily have to prove intent of SA for the charge to stick. The law also says intent to do bodily harm. Which would be easier to be prove, IMO.

 

[zippixx]

....lol.... Which is why I keep saying I don't think it will be hard to convince a jury that the person who had Christina in his trunk, bloody, intended to harm her.

If I were on this jury, even with what is currently known (and I imagine there is more), I can't fathom what the defense could possibly say or do, to create doubt and I am trying to be open-minded. Personally, I think the defense is behind the 8-ball & I certainly wouldn't underestimate the prosecution or LE... JMO

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Ay dios mio! :facepalm:

 

[Jazz]

This may be a dupe post, but have you seen the guest list at the jail for Enrique lately:
https://apps.collincountytx.gov/injail/InJailSearch.aspx

 

[catpatrol]

Two possibilities are offered - only one is needed. Lots of latitude there.

"With the information obtained through this investigation, Affiant believes Enrique Arochi Gutierrez committed the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping PC 20.04 on August 30, 2014, in the area of the 5700 block of Legacy Drive at the Shops at Legacy in Plano, Collin County, Texas, when he intentionally or knowingly abducted another person, Christina Marie Morris, with the intent to inflict bodily injury on her or violate or abuse her sexually, against the peace and dignity of the State."

It also needs to be noted that the affidavit would reflect LE's "belief" at the time it was written - but, it only needs to be offered in good faith. IOW, "beliefs" are subject to change, based on further investigation.

:drumroll: :drumroll: :drumroll:

 

[BaeMomma]

What I am saying is that they are using a witness to set up the idea his motive was SA. I do not trust everyone at that party. Honestly, I don't trust any of them right now. Christina and SB did not have a prior friendship. PP and SB were friends with EA. I just think everything should be combed over with a fine tooth comb, including the witness' account of that evening.

I think they should too but what makes you believe they have not done this? Seriously, an honest question.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I think they should too but what makes you believe they have not done this? Seriously, an honest question.

No other arrests. No new information. No one is talking about this on social media or the press or here much. Other than that, I guess it's against TOS for me to say much. I'm doing my own research and talking to different people who knew Christina.

But, obviously I don't really know. So, should I not state that that's what I think LE should be doing?