Weeks v. State legal case analysis

¶ … prisoner in Texas, while being transferred to a medical facility, became disruptive and violent, forcing the accompanying guards to restrain him. While being restrained, the prisoner, Curtis Weeks, announced that he had AIDS and wanted to take as many other people to the grave with him as possible. After announcing his intention to infect the guard, he then spit in his face. The guard's mouth, nose and face were all contaminated with Weeks' saliva causing the state of Texas to charge Weeks with attempted murder. He was convicted which was upheld on appeal by the 11th circuit court of appeals. There were several issues the court had to deal with in the case including whether or not HIV could be transmitted through saliva, if spitting could be considered attempted murder, and if Weeks acted in the heat of the moment.

The first legal issue that had to be resolved was Weeks' contention that HIV could not be transferred through saliva. Although several civil rights groups petitioned the court stating that "it is impossible to transmit the virus which causes AIDS by spitting," a number of medical experts specializing in HIV testified that it could. (Weeks v. State, 1992) These experts stated that while the chances of doing so were somewhat low, it was possible and there were documented cases where the HIV virus was transmitted through saliva. With this determination the court denied Weeks' contention that he could not have attempted to murder the guard by the act of spitting.

The second issue involved was whether or not Weeks believed at the time that his spitting in the face of the guard could infect, and later kill, the guard. According to trial testimony, the guards stated that Weeks told them he was infected with AIDS and wanted to take as many others with him to the grave. Texas law states that a person can be charged with attempted murder if the defendant "had the intent to cause the death of the complainant and that he committed an act, which amounted to more than mere preparation, that could have caused the death of the complainant but failed to do so." (Weeks v. State, 1992) The State of Texas argued that Weeks' knowledge of his condition, together with the act of spitting on the guard, fulfilled the law's requirement for his being found guilty of attempted murder.

Finally the court had to decide whether Weeks' actions, specifically spitting on the guard, was premeditated or an act performed in the heat of passion. But again, the court determined that Weeks' intentionally spitting on the guard had the intent of infecting that guard with the HIV virus; something that Weeks' hoped would ultimately end in his death. The court found that Weeks "was not acting under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause." (Weeks v. State, 1992)