..."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 must...
Words: 346 - Pages: 2
...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 why...
Words: 517 - Pages: 3
...didn’t chose the other argument. I will give you definitions of 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...
Words: 952 - Pages: 4
...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 the...
Words: 945 - Pages: 4
...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 the...
Words: 1083 - Pages: 5
...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 complaint...
Words: 654 - Pages: 3
...man’s request to release him, and firmly seated the man and threatened to punch him if he moved. The woman then informed Mr. McPhillen that the man was her husband. ISSUE: The questions presented are which intentional torts were committed, and what defenses are available to the tortfeasors? Both John and Leroy are guilty of committing intentional torts. Both parties have debatable defenses. Though the fact remains that 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...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...held that a cut must be of the whole skin and a scratch is not considered as a wound. However, Saunders (1985) overruled the definition of GBH from DPP v Smith (1961), where the definition went from ‘really serious harm’ to ‘serious harm’. Jonty clearly had wounded Patrick, and although not life threatening Patricks injuries can still amount to GBH, and it is only needed to show that his actions led to the consequences of V’s GBH. 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...
Words: 613 - Pages: 3
...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 justified...
Words: 904 - Pages: 4
...The tort of trespass against the person is the relevant issue here which consists of assault, battery ,false imprisonment and emotional suffering which can be identified in the first problem question. RULES: The Non-Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997 is the act which protects a person against the tort of trespass against a person. Battery is the direct application of physical contact upon the person of another without his or her consent, express or implied. It is contact which is outside of what is generally accepted in everyday life. Blackstone stated “The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger ,is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and, therefore, totally prohibits...
Words: 1238 - Pages: 5
...Questions presented: The questions presented are (1) which intentional torts were committed, and (2) what defenses are 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...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...this point that Leroy grabbed the man, later identified as John, by his other arm and neatly twisted behind his back while placing him in a neck hold. John began to protest violently. Leroy then place John in a chair and informed him not to move or he would “have to punch him”. It was at this time the woman, identified as Jane, informed Leroy that the man was in fact her husband. The questions presented are (1) did Leroy or John commit intentional torts, and if so (2) what are their defenses? In this situation both men are guilty of committing intentional torts and both have available defenses to counteract their actions. Based on my interpretation of the facts more information would be needed to determine (1) did John intend the Assault and Battery of...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...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 Dee...
Words: 1028 - Pages: 5
...at what most crimes one of the worst crimes that you have to deal with is Homicide. This is defined as one person killing another. Now how this happens is another story, even thought there are many different types of homicides that could happen. It is up to the detectives who are investigating the homicides to make sure that they catch the person who is responsible. Most of the 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...
Words: 1032 - Pages: 5
...exists in an assault case, be it under omission to act. The next element of trespass to person is battery. Battery has been defined as “the direct and intentional application of physical force to the person of another without lawful justification” . It is the act of making physical contact. This must be intentional. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439, [1968] 3 All ER 442 ), the defendant was held liable for criminal assault as prior to having negligently driven his car on the foot of a police offer, the defendant subsequently deliberately delayed to remove the vehicle. In battery, any form of physical contact, no matter how trivial, is enough to constitute ‘force’. The case of Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 clearly illustrates this. This was the case where a police officer tried to question a woman whom she suspected of soliciting, she took hold of said woman’s arm, whereby the woman scratched her on the arm. It was held that the “officer had gone beyond the scope of her duty, without exercising powers of arrest, her action in touching the woman had amounted to...
Words: 2374 - Pages: 10
