The State v Cherisse Romano

Headline
Estranged husband supported by new lover taunts and initiates physical
confrontation with wife; Wife retaliates in defence against husband.

DEFENCE

Prosecution to Prove
1. Injuries were caused by the defendant.
2. Intention to cause apprehension of immediate and unlawful personal
violence or intention to apply unlawful force.
3. No lawful justification i.e., to show that the defendant (Cherisse) was not
under any attack

Defence Issues
1. Whether Cherisse was defending herself against Daniel?

Defence Strengths
1. Potential Witness (Sister– Petra Marks)
2. Claims Complainant (Daniel) along with Rose was making provocative
statements towards her.
3. Claims that Daniel initiated the ensuing incident by hitting her with the
car door.
4. Claims that she acted in retaliation.
5. Complainant (Daniel) admittance of assaulting her.
6. No life threatening/serious wounding.
 7. First time she has been charged with any offence.

Defence Weakness
1. Potential Witness (Petra Marks) was not present for entirety of incident
and can only speak to what she heard and subsequently what she saw
when she came outside. She cannot speak as to who made provocative
statements or who initiated the physical attack.
2. Claims of Complainant (Daniel) initiating incident uncorroborated.
3. Grabbed onto the complainant Jersey/Shirt and her indication that he was
trying to “push her off” seems to suggest she was not letting go of it.
4. Complainant (Daniel) suggests that he “had to hit her to restrain her”; she
did not indicate her statement that he hit her at least not in the way his
statement suggests.
5. No account given in her statement to account for the bite mark (Medical
Report indicates bite mark; Complainant also indicated biting in his
statement).
6. No Medical Report or Statement of signs of injuries to corroborate her
account.