- Thread starter
- #441
nuraman00
Well-Known Member
Did you and I come to a consensus on whether the way George chased after Mary in "It's A Wonderful Life' was assault and battery?The person doing the battery doesn't need to know it's offensive - he just needs to know that he's doing the touching. The touching has to be offensive, so that's why that's there. Otherwise, a tap on the shoulder would be bad because the actor knows he's touching the person, but here the act is not offensive.
To determine if the act is offensive, a reasonable person standard is applied - where if the actor would know that a reasonable person would be offended - as determined by the jury, then there that element of the crime is satisfied. Punching a stranger for wearing brown glasses instead of black is something a reasonable person would find offensive. Catching a fainting person where you happen to bump into a private area, would probably not. (I can't imagine someone intending on being somewhere knowing someone would faint and taking advantage.)
Sometimes, the circumstances of the actor is factored in - for example, a mentally challenged person might not know that he's touching or could reasonably, given his circumstances, think that it wasn't offensive - like a hug in the wrong place. Intent is also factored in, for if someone genuinely falls into the wrong place on another's body and there are charges filed, the fact that he fell could be used as a defense against intent. The jury has to believe him, of course. I haven't looked this up, but consent would negate the offensiveness of the touching, but good luck to the actor proving that if the victim's is pressing charges.
Putting your hand out on a pole in a bus or something right where a woman's chest is would be an example of an action that "the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching." In other words, this is not just fighting, punching, etc. It would be harder to prove he knew this, but a jury may find it obvious depending upon the circumstances. Having a seizure, there's no intent or knowledge of the touching. In a circumstance where he thinks, and the jury believes, that his feet under the table is leaning against the table leg, when it really was the stranger's legs, that might not qualify as intent or knowledge. If the woman reports rubbing up and down, the jury probably won't believe him. He doesn't need to know that playing footsie with a stranger is offensive.
Is George chasing her and grabbing her, trying to convince her that she knows him, something that the reasonable person standard would find offensive, for battery?
Also, Will Smith did assault and battery yesterday.