英美法期末報告 指導教授：許舜喨 老師 班級：財經法律研究所二甲 學生：陳宜榛 學號：MA1X0106 學生： 學號： 學生： 學號： 班級：財經法律研究所一甲 學生：陳浣青 學號：MA4X0102 學生：曾美珠 學號：MA4X0106

In its Opinion, the trial court described the facts underlying the instant appeal as follows: 原審法院所描述的基本即時事實如下： Police Officer David Tamamato ["Officer Tamamato"] was on duty in full uniform with his partner, Police Officer Erick Ruck ["Officer Ruck",] on March 16, 2013, at 11:30 p.m., on the 5600 block of North Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA. On that date and time, the officers were out of their patrol car conducting a pedestrian investigation of a male[,] who was urinating on the highway. Officer Tamamato was covering [*2] his partner[, Officer] Ruck[,] as he dealt with the male pedestrian. [Herring] was walking along the sidewalk when she approached Officer Tamamato on his right side with two cups of coffee in her hand. Herring stopped and asked Officer Tamamato if the beer store was open. The Officer replied he didn't know, and directed [Herring] across the street to the store's location. [Herring] inquired a second time and attempted to walk between the two police officers. Officer Tamamato instructed her to walk around the investigation-- extending his hand out to prevent [Herring] from coming between them and the suspect.   2

警察David Tamamato [“Tamamato警官”]與他的夥伴 正穿著制服在執勤，警官Erick Ruck[“Ruck 警官”] 3月 16日，2013年，在11時30分，北寬的5600塊街賓夕法 尼亞州費城。在該日期和時間，警官們離開自己的巡邏 車並對一名男性進行考察，那名男性小便在高速公路上。 Tamamato警官正在保護他的夥伴[警官Ruck]，因為他 正在處理那位男性。 [Herring]手拿著兩杯咖啡並沿著人 行道走到Tamamato警官右手邊。Herring停下來問 Tamamator警官啤酒店是否還開著。該官員回答說，他 不知道，並指示[Herring]對街的啤酒店的位置。 [Herring]問第二次，並試圖在兩個警察之間行走。 Tamamato警官指示她走動的方向 並 伸出手，以防止 [Herring]走到他們與犯罪嫌疑人之間。  

[] Officer Tamamato testified [that Herring] responded, "I can walk anywhere I want, bitch," and threw both cups of coffee directly in his face, hitting his right cheek and right eye. The coffee was hot and [Officer Tamamato] felt burning when it hit his skin. He [later] saw redness around his eye area. [Officer Tamamato] observed [that Herring] had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath and slurred speech. Officer Tamamato believed [Herring] to be under the influence of alcohol[,] and placed [Herring] in custody. Officer Tamamato was transported to Albert Einstein Medical Center for [*3] treatment[,] where he received a flush for his eye. There was a redness to the officer's face and cheek.

上訴理由: Herring now presents the following claims for our review: 1. Was not the evidence insufficient to prove aggravated assault[,] as there was no intent to cause bodily injury? 2. Was not the evidence insufficient to prove [PIC,] as coffee does not meet the definition of an instrument of crime? 3. Was not the evidence insufficient to prove [REAP,] as there was no actual risk of serious bodily injury or death? 下列項模為Herring提出供我們的審查的項目： 1.證據不足已證明有嚴重的攻擊[，]因為沒有故意造成身體傷害？ 2.證據不足已證明[PIC]，因為咖啡不符合犯罪的工具的定義？ 3.證據不足已證明[REAP]，因為並沒有出現實際造成嚴重的人身傷害或死亡的風險？   [REAP] is a crime directed against reckless conduct entailing a serious risk to life or limb out of proportion to any utility the conduct might have. [REAP]是針對魯莽行為將會導致嚴重危害生命或身體不相稱的任何公用設施的行為可 能構成犯罪。

Tamamato警官證實[Herring]回答說：“我可以走在 任何地方我想，賤人”，並直接把兩杯咖啡往他臉上， 咖啡擊中他的右臉頰和右眼。咖啡是熱的 [Tamamato警官]當咖啡擊中在他臉上時他感覺在燃 燒。他[之後]看到他的眼周發紅。 [Tamamato警官] 觀察到Herring有很重的酒精氣味因為她的呼吸和說 話含糊不清。Tamamato警官認為[Herring]是酒精 的作用下而產生以上行為，因此拘留了[Herring]。   Tamamato警官被送至愛因斯坦醫療中心治療，在 那裡他沖洗了他的眼睛。他的臉和臉頰也因此而發 紅。  

結論 We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Herring's conviction of REAP REAP(recklessly endangering another person). 我們得出這樣的結論的證據足以維持Herring的罪行。 The evidence reflects that Herring threw hot coffee into Officer Tamamato's face, and walked between Officer Tamamato and his partner during an investigation where the officers had a suspect against a wall. N.T., 12/11/13, at 21. We conclude that this evidence is sufficient to establish that Herring consciously disregarded a known risk of death or great bodily harm to Officer Tamamato and his partner by interfering with the officers. As the trial court observed in its Opinion, "[Herring's] actions put the police officers and public at risk." Trial Court Opinion, 2/4/15, at 6. Accordingly, we cannot grant Herring relief on this claim.   證據反映了Herring將熱咖啡灑至Tamamato警官的臉，警官在執行勤務時，Herring在 Tamamato警官和他的夥伴之間走去。2013年12月11日，我們認為這些證據足以證明 Herring干擾警官執勤並故亦忽視對於警官的死亡或身體傷害，也已經知道Tamamato警 官和他的夥伴身處在一個危險之中。由於原審法院在其意見指出，“[Herring]的行動把警 察和公眾處於危險之中。”審判法庭意見，2015年2月4日。因此，我們不能對這種說法給 予Herring 緩刑（無罪）。