COVID19-Inform About Steps Taken, Testing Facilities, Availability Of Oxygen Cylinders, Remdesivir Injection Etc: AP High Court To State

first_imgNews UpdatesCOVID19-Inform About Steps Taken, Testing Facilities, Availability Of Oxygen Cylinders, Remdesivir Injection Etc: AP High Court To State Sparsh Upadhyay24 April 2021 5:30 AMShare This – xThe Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday (22nd April) asked the State Government to file a comprehensive affidavit with regard to the steps taken by the State to deal with the present COVID-19 pandemic. The Bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice C. Praveen Kumar has also directed that the affidavit should include various facets such as:- Testing facilities, Time being taken for giving reports, Hospitals notified for treatment, Availability of Oxygen cylinders and Remdesivir injections etc. Further, the Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the State should also disclose what measures have been taken with regard to the private hospitals, which are alleged to have been demanding exorbitant fee for admission of COVID patients. With this, the matter was listed for further hearing on Tuesday (27th April). In related news, observing that it was necessary to monitor the steps taken by the Government in Puducherry to deal with the current crisis, the Madras High court on Friday (23rd April) asked the Chief Secretary to the Union Territory to file a report regarding the availability of Remdesivir, Oxygen Cylinders, Doses Of Vaccine, Ventilators etc. The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (22nd April) directed the State to ensure that anti-viral drug Remdesivir – is made available to patients at the hospital/Covid Centre itself without forcing them to run pillar to post, through a helpline number which must be operational 24/7. Hearing the suo motu proceedings initiated by it to take stock of the surge in COVID-19 cases in the state of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (20th April) asked the state Government to come up with Reasonable Remdesivir Distribution Policy. Days after it took note of the issue of non-availability of CT Scan machine in RIMS, the Jharkhand High Court last week expressed concern over the manner in which the State of Jharkhand has been handling the recent surge in Covid-19 cases. A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad called it a “serious issue of concern” that while the Drug Controller submitted that Remdesivir Injection and Favipiravir Tablets were being made available to top medical shops but people were not getting them. To know more about the steps taken by various high courts to monitor COVID-19 issues in their jurisdictions, read this exclusive report by Live Law. How Various High Courts Have Been Monitoring COVID19 Issues In Their Jurisdictions? Click here To Download OrderRead OrderTagsCOVID Management Testing Facilities COVID COVID -19 Availability Of Oxygen Cylinders Oxygen Shortage #Oxygen Remdesivir Remdesivir Injection Remdesivir Distribution Policy AP High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Andhra Pradesh Government Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami Justice C. Praveen Kumar COVID-19 Crisis #Remdesivir Next Storylast_img read more

Judges Divided On Retrial For Voluntary Manslaughter

first_imgJudges Divided On Retrial For Voluntary ManslaughterJennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.comIn a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter, which the state chose to charge him with after he shot and killed his brother-in-law in what he claimed was self-defense.Billy Brantley lived with his sister Martha Gunn, her husband Bruce Gunn and the couple’s minor son, Sean. Bruce had a history of chronic physical and mental health problems. He and his wife often verbally fought with each other and he was once arrested for domestic battery for choking Martha.On July 14, 2014, after returning from a job interview, Brantley heard the couple fighting. The two were seated while arguing. Bruce was asked by Brantley to calm down, but he said he was going to “take care of all of his problems,” as he stood up. Brantley, believing Bruce was holding a knife fatally shot Brantley one time. The object turned out to be Bruce’s glasses.The state charged Brantley with voluntary manslaughter, which the Court of Appeals pointed out it could not find an Indiana case in which someone hadn’t been charged or convicted of that crime who hadn’t also been charged with murder, although it does appear in the criminal code as its own crime. Brantley was convicted of the charge.The state must prove sudden heat whether the charge is brought as a stand-alone charge or as a lesser included offense to murder, Judge Edward Najam wrote. And in this case, the state failed to produce any evidence, let alone prove by a reasonable doubt, that Brantley acted under “sudden heat” when he knowingly killed Bruce, he continued.Here, neither party presented any evidence of sudden heat or made argument to the jury that Brantley acted under sudden heat. There was no evidence presented that Brantley was angry, enraged, suddenly resentful, or in terror,” Najam wrote. “There was no evidence that Brantley was anything but calm at all relevant times. And the State never argued otherwise to the jury … .”Najam and Judge Melissa May wrote that the state cannot retry Brantley because of the insufficient evidence, leading to a dissent from Judge L. Mark Bailey. He took issue with a jury instruction that said “the state has conceded the existence of sudden heat by charging voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.”Bailey wrote that there is evidence of provocation and a sudden killing, so there is evidence from which the jury could conclude that Brantley acted in sudden heat. He would permit retrial on the charge of voluntary manslaughter and remand to the trial court.The case is Billy Brantley v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1606-CR-1401.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more