July 02, 2004

• I think battery was probably the wrong charge. I've sat on juries before and know that juries are given very specific instructions about what constitutes a guilty verdict. I think the police or the DA screwed up on this one. Also, that guy is a total asshat. It makes me wish I knew him so I could kick him in the nuts.
• yes, it is unfortunate that such a seemingly cut-n-dry situation was, seemingly, mishandled. I doubt there was much the jury could do...imho, there is no doubt that the man should have been found guilty of something (dorkhood at the least) if the story is an accurate portrayal of events...
• Yeah there should be a "twenty back-handed bitch slaps" sentence for this kind of behavior. I don't know the legal definition of battery, so I have no idea if this qualifies, but certainly it's some kind of harrassment...or something?
• mct, I would really REALLY like to be the one to administer those sentences. can I? can I? huh?? huh???
• I'm pretty sure in New Zealand this would fall as sexual assault, albeit at the lower end of the scale. Battery? Isn't that causing physical harm?
• In common law, battery is touching someone against their will, so unless the statuatory law of the area the incident took place in is different from the common law, it seems that this was the right thing to charge the jerk with. Perhaps there is more to the story than we know. Or, unfortunately, perhaps the "she wanted it" defense worked for him, as it so often does.
• no. battery = bodily harm, usually w/ intent to cause bodily harm. they should've charged him w/ either disorderly conduct or 4th degree sexual assault. kind of a poorly written blurb, too.
• krebs: I'm fairly sure Wedge is correct. Simply touching someone can be assault. And the "she wanted it defence" sometimes works because, well, it's true.
• Battery was probably the wrong charge; assault would have been more appropriate: ASSAULT, crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery.
• How about molestation?
• She could easily sue him for assault. Assault and battery can be two different things criminally and civilly. Of course, she would probably win about one dollar with a civil suit for that. Here in North Carolina, I am fairly confident that our judges would have convicted him of assault at the District Court level, but it would be fairly easy to convince a jury not to do so at the Superior Court level. The man's actions are offensive to most people, certainly. But I don't think that most people would be comfortable convicting him of a crime. I would not.
• She asked for it? Pllleeeeeze. Why would a woman put herself through all the humiliation and spend a potload of money on a lawyer to do it? Best case: He's an asshat that sure thinks a lot of himself. Worse case: He's a preditor. Let's just hope he realizes this is not a green light for raping the next woman. It's a weird world out there.
• A battery is the unlawful touching the person of another by the aggressor himself, or any other substance put in motion by him. 1 Saund. 29, b. n. 1; Id. 13 & 14, n. 3. It must be either willfully committed, or proceed from want of due care. Str. 596; Hob. 134; Plowd. 19 3 Wend. 391. Hence an injury, be it never so small, done to the person of another, in an angry, spiteful, rude or insolent manner, as by spitting in his face, or any way touching him in anger, or violently jostling him, are batteries in the eye of the law. I don't practice law, so I admit I have no idea how cases are prosecuted in practice. In theory however, I was taught (at Harvard Law School) that battery is unlawfully touching another. There does not have to be actual physical harm. For assault, there does not even have to be physical touching, merely the threat of unlawful touching.
• The guy is a slimeball, not a thug. Again, the AP does this case no justice (does it ever?) by providing ~1 paragraph of information about it. There is a lot we don't know. Searching google news isn't turning up anything different, of course. But the headline is just misleading: "Jury: Stealing a Kiss Isn't a Crime". Stealing kisses may or may not be criminal. But the headline makes it seem as though the SCOTUS has handed down a ruling stating that all kisses are free, and people are now free to just kiss whomever... thanks to the five men and one women in that jury. It should say, "Jury: Stealing a Kiss Wasn't Considered Battery in This Instance". or "Jury: Victoria Franich is Full of Shit". or whatever. Too much ink, obviously, but you know what I mean.
• Baisers vol

• Pllleeeeeze. Why would a woman put herself through all the humiliation and spend a potload of money on a lawyer to do it?

  I don't know. But then, why would a tradesman dependent on trusted access to peoples' homes put his career and reputation on the line by foisting unwanted attentions on someone? There are plenty of wierdos out there, after all.
• ...don't think that most people would be comfortable convicting him of a crime Seems like there should be some supporting evidence if this were to go before a jury, otherwise it's one person's unsubstantiated word against the other's unsubstantiated word. The article gives frustratingly little information about what actually happened other than the charges the lady made. If battery were an incorrect charge, shouldn't it be possible to use 'assault' in another separate case?
• we have double jeopardy laws here to protect against that sort of thing, bees.
• adding to that: double jeopardy plays on the *acts* not the charges. So not only can you not be tried for "murder" twice (if more evidence came up or something), you cannot be tried a second time for manslaughter. See: 10,000 Law & Order episodes for further details Also, there must be something more to this story (boring details no doubt, from the illustrious journalist's POV), but in the absence of information I'm going with Wedge et al -- creepy asswhipe scumbag as he was the jury likely just didn't consider it a jailable offence.
• We need fines for this sort of thing. So you could have a fine, maybe then paid to the person so offended. That way there is no criminal record, but there is at least a slap on the wrist, a way for the community to say "That's not approproate, pay $100".