Neigbor spits in your face.

[Temprano]

In Pierce County, Washington State, is it 4th degree assault for a neighbor to spit in another neighbors face? Also, can the neighbor threaten bodily harm and future assaults at will?

[HighwayMan]

No, it is not assault. Spitting on someone does not cause "bodily harm". Check the statutes for the requirements for Assault 1st through 4th degrees. Unless the spitter has HIV/AIDS it is not an assault.

I don't have the time right now to search around the Revised Code of Washington beyond the assault statutes, but it would probably be something like harassment.

[CdwJava]

In my state this would be the crime of battery ... I suspect it is much the same in Washington. In fact, in a published opinion I found here:

[url]http://www.worldofworklawblog.com/uploads/file/strong.pdf[/url]

It states that spitting is, indeed , fourth degree assault in Washington. While it is a civil court matter, it does seem to indicate clearly that spitting is such an assault.

Truthfully, I'd rather get socked in the mouth than spit on! I'm rather less likely to get infected with something from a pop to the nose then getting spit on.

- Carl

[HighwayMan]

I read that opinion, and I'm a bit baffled. It seems to contradict the statute.

If saliva is considered a "noxious substance" then it would be a higher degree of assault, otherwise it wouldn't fit the requirements of Assault 4th (or 3rd, 2nd, or 1st).

What is also strange is how the statute helps define itself, i.e. "a person is guilty of assault... when he assaults another".

But I can't seem to find a definition of what assault is in the criminal code. The assault statutes mention bodily harm and great bodily harm, which are defined:

(a) "Bodily injury," "physical injury," or "bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or an impairment of physical condition;

(b) "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily part;

But obviously spitting does not meet these standards. I have no idea how that court came to the conclusion that spitting is Assault 4th.

[CdwJava]

From the Revised Code of Washington:

RCW 9A.36.041
Assault in the fourth degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree if, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first, second, or third degree, or custodial assault, he or she assaults another.

(2) Assault in the fourth degree is a gross misdemeanor.

The previous three levels of assault require damage or intent, thus leaving only the lowest form left.

While I could not immediately locate the definition of "assault" in the RCW, one defense attorney has this to say about "assault":

"Assault is defined as an intentional touching of another person that is harmful or offensive regardless of whether any physical injury is caused. A touching is considered offensive if it would offend an ordinary person who is not unduly sensitive."

I suspect that it is codified somewhere, or settled via case law. And since it appears that at least one court has defined spitting as an assault 4, and other states (including mine) have defined spitting as battery, it seems logical that spitting can be charged here.

- Carl

[HighwayMan]

The differences in laws from state to state is interesting.

I have some issues with how those Washington assault statutes are written. It also seems strange that assault does not seem to be defined anywhere. I just spent about 30 minutes looking through the criminal code and couldn't find it. I would think that it's a basic definition that should be in the code.

In New York, assault requires a physical injury. If there is no PI then it would be harassment (no battery exists here).

[CdwJava]

Here, "assault" is generally a swing and a miss ... unless you are talking about deadly weapons or firearms. "Battery" is when impact is made.

Yep, these things vary by state.

- Carl