(202) 549-2374
On “offensive touching” assault in D.C.
The defendant “poked” the complainant somewhere on the body after having been specifically admonished not to do so. Such an “offensive touching” constituted a criminal assault.
On the right to testify in Graves v. U.S.
It is reversible error for the trial judge to prohibit the defendant from testifying that he was acting in self-defense when the court had already concluded that the arresting officer had not used excessive force.
“Touching” versus “feeling” in Augustin v. United States
For purposes of the misdemeanor sexual assault of minors statute, the D.C. Court of Appeals refused to limit the definition of “touch” to the act of “feeling” with one’s tactile senses — through, for example, the use of one’s fingers, hands, genitals or other sensory organs.
Good judge. Bad person.
A D.C. Superior Court judge — always one of my favorites — retires abruptly after being accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl.
“Intent-to-frighten” assault in D.C.
“Intent-to-frighten” assault is defined as threatening or menacing conduct that is intended to cause the victim to fear immediate bodily injury.
Is spitting on someone simple assault in D.C.?
Spitting on someone would satisfy the definition of an “offensive touching” provided that the government could prove that the defendant’s actions were intentional and not by mistake or accident.
Excessive force is still the standard for self-defense in an APO case
The standard for asserting self-defense in an assault case involving a police officer is still whether or not the police officer used excessive force during the arrest.
Can I expunge a criminal record for simple assault?
A criminal record for simple assault in D.C. can be sealed either immediately on the grounds of actual innocence or after two years in the interests of justice. A conviction for simple assault can be sealed after eight years. Expunging/sealing an arrest for simple assault There are two different ways to expunge/seal an arrest for simple assault. The first way is …
High v. U.S.: Cross Words and Police Officers
I tried to argue a while back that, when it comes to D.C.’s statute on Threats to do Bodily Harm, parking enforcement officers should be considered to be particularly immune to threats. After all, they are used to dealing with angry people who have just found a ticket on their windshield. Such officers, I would assume, are also trained both …
I wanted to hit the complainant myself
I wanted to hit him myself. This is what I tell my client after speaking with the complainant in a simple assault case. My client is accused of punching the complainant in the face. The complainant turns out to be a first-class jerk. I call him up before the arraignment to find out what happened. I also express concern for …
Teneyck v. U.S.: What is Significant Bodily Injury Under the Felony Assault Statute?
The D.C. Court of Appeals has issued a number of opinions over the last couple of years in which it has refined the definition of “significant bodily injury” under D.C.’s felony assault statute. In Nero v. United States, for example, the court found that a bodily injury was significant when a bullet passed through the complainant’s bicep, causing “obvious pain …
Gayden v. U.S.: Interpreting the “Resist” and “Intimidate” Provisions of D.C.’s APO Statute
In Cheeks v. United States, a case issued a couple of months ago, the D.C. Court of Appeals interpreted the “interfere” provision of D.C.’s Assault of a Police Officer (APO) statute. (It is illegal under this statute to assault, resist, oppose, impede, interfere with or intimidate a police officer who is performing his official duties, and the court has had …
Cheek v. U.S.: Interpreting the “Interfere” Language of D.C.’s APO Statute
The Assault on a Police Officer (APO) statute is so broad that the D.C. Court of Appeals has had to issue multiple opinions to interpret it. In Edwin Cheek v. United States, 103 A.3d 1019 (D.C. 2014), an opinion it issued today, it interpreted that portion of the law that makes it illegal to “interfere” with a police officer while …
Attempted battery assault is a “specific intent” offense
As recent D.C. case law demonstrates, the distinction between general and specific intent crimes is both simplistic and potentially misleading.
On getting your own witness locked up
I put our star witness in jail. I have heard about prosecutors being slammed for doing this. One of my adjunct professors in law school – a prosecutor in Philadelphia – ended up on someone’s list of the top ten worst prosecutors in the country for having one of her witnesses in a murder case sit in custody for two …
New Lawsuit Alleging Military Rape Filed in Federal Court
The Associated Press reported on the lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco alleging that current and former members of the U.S. military were sexually assaulted while serving: The 20 women and men filing the lawsuit claim they were harassed, raped or assaulted and suffered retaliation when they reported the incidents. The lawsuit names top Department of Defense …
Why I Hate D.C.’s “Threats to do Bodily Harm” Statute
Your client is 19 years old. She weighs 105 pounds and stands under five feet tall. Having been arrested for a minor offense, she sits handcuffed in a room surrounded by police officers. Her eyebrow is bleeding from a cut she suffered from being thrown up against a chain link fence. All the police officers are male. They are …
Congressman Etheridge and Simple Assault in D.C.
While the YouTube video is now posted all over the Internet, I first found out about Congressman Etheridge’s altercation with two students when checking out my website stats through Google Analytics. I found that visits to the Simple Assault page on my website had gone through the roof. My summary of the offense was also quoted and linked to …
Self-Defense in a D.C. Assault Case
Self-defense is an affirmative defense to simple assault and other assault charges in D.C. Self-defense is the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family or one’s property from a real or threatened attack. It is an affirmative defense, meaning that the defendant has the initial burden of raising it. In D.C., once the defendant has been able to introduce …