Premium Essay

Assault and Battery

In: Other Topics

Submitted By kezar
Words 3516
Pages 15
INTRODUCTION

This assignment endeavors to discuss in detail;
(i). the circumstances under which words threatening violence may constitute a tortuous assault.
(ii). How the victim’s consent may defeat an action for battery.

It is thus arrived at with the aid extracted from works of various renowned scholars, judicial precedents both binding and persuasive, and the legitimate Acts of parliament as well as, the student’s module which is a guide to the course outline.

Assault and battery are considered as a single offence under criminal law. However, tort law insists on taking them as separate offences and considers their distinction very essential. Assault is the act which creates fear for potential battery. In other words it is the very act that will lead the victim to apprehend an immediate violence of a battery, while battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force onto the victim. It follows therefore that where “X” stones “Y” but misses, constitutes an assault, the actual physical contact on “Y” becomes a battery.
Both assault and battery are deemed and considered to be intentional torts. Meaning that, the defendant intended to cause the plaintiff to apprehend. The wrongful touching need not to inflict physical injury .That wrongful contact may as well be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone; or spitting). ASSAULT An assault involves;
• An intentional, unlawful threat or offer to cause bodily injury to another by force.
• Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril.
• Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. An assault is an attempt or offer to apply unlawful force to a person by another. The offender must have the ability to carry out that threat, the basis…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Assault and Battery

..."Assault and Battery" Assault and battery are two separate crimes. Assault is when a person tries to injure another person. Battery is when the criminal actually injures another person. These terms are usually coupled together and used as one offense. A person can commit assault and not commit battery. Furthermore, a person cannot commit battery without assaulting the victim. The Virginia law code states that when a "simple" assault and battery occurs, the criminal will be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. But when a person intentionally picks out another person because of his "race, religious conviction, color, or national origin," the penalty will be a minimum term of six (6) months and thirty (30) days in prison. There are different types of assault. One form of assault is, "Assault with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon." When a criminal is charged with such a crime, the penalty received is a felony. A felony is defined as any sentence in which the criminal serves a minimum of a year in jail. A question that might arise is, "What is considered a 'Deadly or Dangerous Weapon'?" To this question, the response would be absolutely everything, if applied in any way that could be deadly to a person. A sock can be used as a deadly when if it is placed in a person's mouth and forces them to choke or cause other fatal wounds. Another form of assault is sexual assault. This term, again, is coupled with the term sexual battery. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the prosecutor......

Words: 346 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Dorchester Democrat Sentenced to 6 Months in Assault Case

...to 6 months in assault case A 37 year old state representative, Carlos Henriquez, was sentenced to six months in prison after a jury had convicted him of punching a woman in the chest after she had refused to have sex with him. The district judge; Michele Hogan, said, “when a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, that means she does not want to have sex.” Hogan’s sentence for Henriquez was two and a half years, in the house of correction, yet he ordered Henriquez to serve only 6 months of the sentence that Henriquez was given. However; Middlesex prosecutors had asked that Henriquez be ordered to serve 1 year of a 2 and a half year sentence, which would be the maximum for assault and battery. Henriquez’s lawyer, Stephanie Soriano-Mills, asked Hogan for Henriquez’s sentence to be probation and to acquit on some of the charges. Stephanie Soriano-Mills had called the sentence harsh. In other words, this case has to do with assault and battery. The meaning of battery is to touch someone unlawfully. The definition of assault is the attempt to try to commit battery. Assault as a tort and a crime are different. A victim of a tort must know that the person that had committed the tort, meant to commit harm. Trying to commit harm is necessary when trying to establish fear. Assault and battery are usually committed together. You cannot commit battery without committing assault. On the other hand, assault can be committed without committing battery. The reason......

Words: 517 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Criminal Law

...aggravated assault, aggravated battery, simple assault and simple battery. I would not chose argument number 2 Sharon should not be charged with aggravated assault and battery, but only simple assault and battery, since no deadly weapon was used. The reason I would chose this argument is because I would say the wine bottle was not a deadly weapon. I would research and see if there were cases that were similar to this case. I would prove that the wine bottle was not broken at the time of the event and that is why it was not a deadly weapon. Here is a case of a women hitting her husband with a wine bottle. Susan Van Cook, 42, of Trails End was charged with two misdemeanors (Leslie Korngold). I would not chose argument number 1 because it would be hard to prove by reasonable doubt that she did this because she was drunk. I am thinking that if you use argument number 1 you could also say she was afraid he was going to hit her first. I think that this argument would be too hard to prove. I could be wrong and this may be easier to prove then I think. Here are the definitions of aggravated assault and aggravated battery. aggravated assault n. the crime of physically attacking another person which results in serious bodily harm and/or is made with a deadly or dangerous weapon such as a gun, knife, sword, ax or blunt instrument. Aggravated assault is usually a felony punishable by a term in state prison (1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill). Aggravated Battery......

Words: 952 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Assualt

...Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons Kaitlin Frazier Professor MacBeth LEG 320 Criminal Law Strayer University 9/6/2015 Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons Assault and Battery are often misconceived as the same crime. There are many very similar traits with assault and battery that would convince some people that they are the exact same crime, but there are a few differences that distinguish the two crimes from one another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another person by imminent, harmful, or offensive contact (Legal Dictionary-Assault). Battery is an act of harmful or offensive touching of another person. Assault and Battery are similar in that they both involve threat and harm. The main difference of Battery compared to Assault is Battery involves contact of some form against another person. In the case of Assault no physical contact is necessary; the only thing that is needed is a threat or intention of violence. An example of Assault is a nurse trying to do her job and give a patient medicine through administering an IV, the patient is hostile and threatens to hurt the nurse by saying he is going to punch, kick, and stab her if she puts the IV in his arm. The nurse would remove herself from the room to insure her safety. As for Battery physical contact is mandatory, there needs to be a threat and a follow through of violence. An example of Battery is the same nurse trying to administer the IV to the hostile patient with......

Words: 945 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Brief Smith V Stolberg

...Smith filed a complaint against Stolberg for assault, battery, and negligence. The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint for negligence only. The plaintiff is essentially claiming an intentional, offensive touching. Therefore, the plaintiff’s proper cause of action is intentional tort of battery, not negligence. The trial court granted in favor of the defendant in regards to plaintiffs negligence claim. Issue: Can Smith be held liable for assault and battery since Stolberg amended his assault and battery complaint? Rule: The intention to do harm is the essence of an assault. In actions to recover assault does not apply to actions to recover for assault and battery. Battery is a general intent offense. The defendant does not need to intend specific harm, but only commit an act of unwanted contact. If the wrongdoer only intended an assault but did not intend to actually hurt the person, but yet made contact with the person, both an assault and a battery have occurred. The plaintiff does not have to prove an actual physical injury. The plaintiff only needs to prove an unlawful act, MCL 600.5805. Once there is harm all elements of battery are present. Espinoza v. Thomas, 189 Mich.App. 110, 119, 472 N.W.2d 16 (1991). The Circuit Court of Lapeer did find that Stolberg did intentionally push Smith into the bench causing him to hit the floor. However, Smith argued the fact that he was not informed of the assault and battery complaint since Stolberg amended his......

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Law as : Criminal Liability of Jonty and Patrick Offences Against the Persons Act

...This was ruled in Burstow (1997) where ‘inflict’ didn’t require a technical assault or battery. Jonty may be liable for s 39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 for battery. Battery is the application of unlawful force or violence with intention or subjective recklessness to applying the unlawful force. This includes the slightest touching which is shown by Collins v Wilcock(1984) where the officer unlawfully held V’s arm which was enough to for battery. Jonty unlawfully kicked Patrick therefore constituted a battery. Jonty committed a further battery when he grabs the official’s jacket. In Thomas (1985) it was held by the Court of Appeal that if you touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him. Jonty grabbing the jacket suggests an application of force, which is sufficient to form a battery. Words can be sufficient for an assault. For example, in Light(1857), D raised a sword above the head of his wife and said ‘if it were not for the police outside, I would split your head open’. It was held that this was an assault as wife feared that there was going to be force used on her. However, words can negate an assault, as seen in Tuberville v Savage (1669) Consequently, the horse reared up after Jonty kicks Patrick and Patrick sprains his wrist which is sufficient for s47 offence. S47 of the OAPA 1861 is the offence of assault occasioning ABH. This is an assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm with intention or subjective......

Words: 613 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Personal Crimes Analysis

...as homicide, assault, battery, mayhem, rape and statutory rape. I will show the link on how these crimes can affect a person on a personal level. Homicide is the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being. There are three different crimes of homicides defined in the text. The first being Justifiable homicides that are permitted by law. The second is Excusable homicides, this type of homicide involves fault of a person killing another, but not enough fault the person is charged with criminal homicide. An example of this type of homicide is if a person driving a car is involved in an accident because of road conditions being icy. The person who lost control of the vehicle because of road conditions killed another person in the car they had hit. They caused an accident, but had no intentions of causing the accident or killing another person. The third is Criminal homicide, with criminal homicide the person who committed the act did so intentionally. Criminal homicide is when justifiable homicide and excusable homicide can be ruled out. Criminal homicide is a personal attack on another human being. (Schmalleger, 2010 Chapter 7 page 192) Assault is a personal attack on another person by either a physical act or verbal attack. Assault is an attempt or a threatened battery. Assault and Battery are often linked together, because many times assault leads to battery. There are two types of assault, attempted battery and threatened battery. Attempted battery is when......

Words: 1083 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Criminal Justine

...Institution: An assault is the act of unlawfully attacking people verbally by abusing or threatening them or forcing them to do things against their will. Assault does not involve contact. Examples of assaults are, threatening to kill or take by word of mouth, through a text or mail or pointing a gun, a knife or any other dangerous object to someone to show the strength of the message. It is sometimes difficult to pursue a case against someone who has abused another verbally, since the terms could meant for protective purposes. Sexual assault involves contact. This is when a person is forced, against her will, to have sex with another person. It is only fair to get a refraining order for a person who has committed assault so that when the persons violate it by hurting the people he threatened, charges of assault and battery are on him (Husak, 2007). Battery, on the other hand, involves contact. This is the unlawful torturing of a person by physically abusing them. The injury must be evident for it to be battery. For example, presence of a burn, a cut or a bullet wound that shows that the battery took place. Unintentional damage to someone is not battery. However, there are instances where battery is justified. If you hurt someone while defending yourself, you will only need enough evidence and proof for the rulings to favor you. In defending ones property, one can injure, in defending the interest of an office or in the process of law in the court, a battery can be......

Words: 904 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Personal Crime Analysis

...times the crime that is being committed can also end up as a homicide if there is enough force being used. Assaults are in most cases the leading crime that ends up in a homicide. When you have someone that is angry enough to hurt the other, then it can also lead to other things. An Assault is defined as a physical attack upon another. You can have many different kinds of assaults like assault with a deadly weapon like a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm such as a shoe when you go to kick someone when they are down. You also can have a verbal assault on a person that does not result in a battery. This is not uncommon most of the time it could happen when you are even in a parking lot looking for a spot to park and someone gets angry with you and confronts you verbally. This is more of an everyday occurrence that people tend to go through because they have issues that spark a big controversy with others. Now in schools it is known as bullying, and this is becoming a huge epidemic. Battery is when a person tries to cause physical harm to another person. When a physical altercation takes place and causing injury to the victim, it can also escalate to the level of homicide if the suspect has that intention. Battery charged as a misdemeanor can also be moved up to a felony if there has been serious bodily injury to the victim. Victims in battery can come from anywhere it could be a girlfriend, a date that you are with, or a non-cohabitant spouse.......

Words: 1032 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Leroy Mchphillen

...more information is needed regarding the events that occurred prior to the assault and battery to the woman, and the time of how long the intoxicated man was confined. Before determining what are the applicable statues and what each parties defense may be we must first explain each intentional tort committed. Intentional Torts: The first intentional tort was the intoxicated man’s shouting obscenities at the woman, approaching her in a threatening manner, and finally grabbing her wrist. Regardless of her relationship to him, his actions are considered to be Assault and Battery. The second intentional tort of Assault and Battery occurred when Mr. McPhillen physically restrained the drunken man, and threatened to punch him. Mr. McPhillen may also be charged with a third intentional tort of False Imprisonment. More information is needed to reference the length of time the intoxicated man was unwillingly restrained to the seat, before the woman disclosed that he was her husband, and was allowed to move. The duration must be significant in order to prove that indeed it was False Imprisonment and a charge could be brought forth. RULE: Assault and Battery & False Imprisonment Kansas Crimes and Punishments 21-3408 Assault -  Assault is intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm Assault is a class C person misdemeanor 21-3412 Battery. Battery is: Intentionally or recklessly causing bodily harm to another person;......

Words: 1003 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Memo

...available to the tortfeasors? Short Answer: In this case, both the intoxicated man and Mr. McPhillen are in fact guilty of committing intentional torts. Both parties do have arguable defenses available. However, more information is needed regarding (1) events occurring prior to the Assault and Battery on the woman, and (2) the duration of the intoxicated man’s confinement. In order to determine which applicable statutes apply, and each party’s available defenses, we must first define each intentional tort committed. PA165-01 (Unit 3) 2 Intentional Torts Committed: 1A. The first intentional tort was the intoxicated man’s shouting obscenities at the woman, approaching her in a threatening manner, and finally grabbing her wrist. Regardless of her relationship to him, his actions are considered an Assault and Battery. All elements necessary to constitute this offense are present, as outlined in Kaplan University PA165-01 course material, Chapter 5 Intentional Torts: Injuries To Persons (2011). 1B. The second intentional tort of Assault and Battery occurred when Mr. McPhillen physically restrained the intoxicated man, and threatened to punch him. All elements necessary to constitute this offense are present, as outlined in Kaplan University PA165-01 course material, Chapter 5 Intentional Torts: Injuries To Persons (2011). 1C. ......

Words: 1191 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Gbh with Intent

...Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent Assault causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent is a criminal offence which is covered by Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, so both GBH with intent and Common Assault are categorised under two separate laws which is a difference. For this offence there needs to be “really serious harm” or a similarity between common assault and GBH with intent is that the assault or battery needs to have caused wounding of another person. Probably the best example of this is someone stabbing another person. Intention plays a key role when dealing with GBH. If there was intention to inflict this “really serious harm” then this would fall under Section 18 (the more serious offence). For example if a person head-butts another and breaks their nose they would be guilty of Section 20 if they had not specifically wanted to cause the damage, i.e. a broken nose. If the person knew exactly what they were doing and intended to cause the damage then they would be guilty of Section 18 and charged accordingly. Section 18 can in some cases result in life imprisonment but in reality sentences over ten years are extremely rare. A difference to common assault is that in the case of GBH the option of just a fine is not provided even if it is a first time offence. Also in the case of GBH it is often likely that bail will be refused due to the violent nature of the offence. Common Assault Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be...

Words: 675 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Intentional Torts Od Leroy Mcphillen

...John intend the Assault and Battery of his wife Jane; (2) was Leroy McPhillen’s use of force considered unreasonable, In order to determine the appropriate defenses of the parties, we must first outline the intentional torts committed. The first intentional tort of Assault and Battery was committed when John approached Jane yelling obscenities while doing so in an ominous looking manner, and finally by grabbing her wrist. Although John and Jane are married, he still committed Assault and Battery. After reviewing the facts, I have confirmed that all the elements of Assault and Battery are existing. The definition of assault is I reference Kaplan University Course PA165-Torts and Personal Injury Law, Chapter 5 Intentional Torts: Injuries to Persons (2010). The second intentional tort of Assault and Battery was committed when Leroy McPhillen twisted John’s arm behind his back while placing him in a neck hold. Finally, seating John in a chair and informing him not to move or else he would be punched. Again, I reference Kaplan University Course PA165-Torts and Personal Injury Law, Chapter 5 Intentional Torts: Injuries to Persons (2010). Lastly, Leroy McPhillen also committed the intentional tort of False Imprisonment occurred when he detained John by physical restraint without his consent (Okrent, 2010, p. 121), then placing him in a chair and threatening (to punch) him verbally. Based on the facts given, Jane could bring charges against John for assault, battery, reckless......

Words: 1003 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

The Magic of Beckett's Post Modern Work

...ASSIGNMENT 1 Kylie Pang Caro v. Bron Claim against Bron for assault Assault occurs when the defendant directly produces apprehension in the plaintiff of battery. It is clear that because Caro attempted to spin around and avoid Bron, that she was aware of and anticipating a direct physical act on her person. Bron would argue that she did not intend to cause physical harm but there does not need to be intent to cause harm – only intent to act. By “skating full speed into a crowd of people” she clearly intended the act of doing so – or she would not have done it. Furthermore, because this act was driven by a desire for attention, it shows that she fully intended to create a stir in the group of people and that the consequences were desired. Assault does not necessarily constitute a completed battery (Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735) so whether or not Bron caused actual physical harm to Caro is irrelevant. Caro would most likely be successful in collecting compensatory damages from Bron for assault considering both apprehension of battery and intent by Bron to cause apprehension are clear. Dee v. Bron Claim against Bron for battery Battery may occur when direct physical contact has arisen from a series of events that are put in motion by the intent of the defendant (Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 ER 525). Bron would argue that she did not directly touch Dee and Caro was actually the one to physically harm her, but Bron’s actions had a ‘flow on effect’ that led to......

Words: 1028 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Consumer Protection Act

...find liability we must first establish the actus reus. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The assault refers to common assault so either assault or battery. In this case it’s an assault. Jon made Lucy fear immediate and unlawful (Lamb) violence. There is no need for any physical contact. The cases of Ireland and Burstow confirm that silence can amount to an assault. It’s also clear she feared unlawful violence (Logdon) as she ran off crying. The second part of the definition is occasioning, did Jon’s actions cause the harm. There are no intervening acts so its clear his actions where the operating and substantial cause. The final part of the actus reus Is the harm caused by Jon’s battery actual bodily harm. Miller defines ABH as ‘more than minimal harm’. Chan-fook established mental harm as a form of ABH. As she couldn’t go out for months after, I believe this is more than minimal harm. Actus reus established. Next the mens rea must be proven. Intention or recklessness as to causing the initial assault or battery. Savage confirms the mens rea for s.47. In this case I believe Jon had intention, it was a clear action that’s not a natural reflex or anything of that nature. It’s completely voluntary therefore it was his choice to carry it out. Liability can be established, Jon would be charged with s.47, which carries a sentence of up to 5 years imprisonment. For Malik, Jon would be liable for battery. The AR for battery is the unlawful application of force to......

Words: 742 - Pages: 3