• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Battery Without Assault?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

bamakertracer

Junior Member
The context of this post is the state of Alabama.

**Joe and Marty are bar patrons. Joe is there with his mother.
**Marty calls Joe’s mother a fat cow to her face.
**Joe shoves Marty.
**Marty takes a swing at Joe.
**Joe ducks and swings back, punching Marty in the face and knocking him unconscious.
**Marty is lying unconscious on the ground.
**Joe proceeds to stomp on Marty’s head, injuring him seriously, and sending him to the hospital.
**Marty files a pro-se civil suit against Joe (who retains an attorney), alleging battery and referring only to the head stomping after he was knocked unconscious.
**Joe’s Lawyers seek to demonstrate self defense on the part of Joe. Joe produces witnesses that say Marty attacked Joe. Joe’s mother also says that Marty insulted her.
**Marty files a motion to suppress any evidence or testimony regarding the fight and who started it, since with Joe’s witnesses, will contaminate a traditional “deep south” jury that, regardless of the legal aspects, will make their decision based on their notion of “Marty had it comin. Got what he deserved. A man doesn’t insult another man’s mother.”
** The judge denies the motion to suppress.

Is this correct? Or is Marty correct in asserting that the battery after he was unconscious is a separate act. He had no apprehension because he was unconscious. He had no means to react or defend himself. It also is irrelevant who started the confrontation or who the assailant was. Because no matter who it was, one of them was knocked out, and there was no further threat. The fight was over.

It seems a judge doesn’t agree that battery can be separate from assault.
 
Last edited:


justalayman

Senior Member
you need to start with looking up the legal definitions of assault and battery within Alabama law. States define the terms differently and you appear to not be using alabama’s definitions
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Is what correct? Was the judge correct in denying the inane motion to suppress? Yes.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do with "separating the assult from the battery" here anyhow. First off, there's no seperate distinction in Alabama law. There's no crime of "battery." Assault there is the threat or the actual infliction of physical harm. Further, even if there were such a distinction, I'm not sure why you think there is any relevence in a civil suit.

Calling someone's mother a name may be provocation, but it's not assault.

Retalliation is not self defense, neither is mutual brawling (which is what appears to be going on here).

It would definitely seem that the entire sequence of events is relevant to the case. You're not going to be able to just bring a "sound bite" of the entire fight to try to win damages on one particular blow that occurred there.
 

quincy

Senior Member
The context of this post is the state of Alabama.

**Joe and Marty are bar patrons. Joe is there with his mother.
**Marty calls Joe’s mother a fat cow to her face.
**Joe shoves Marty.
**Marty takes a swing at Joe.
**Joe ducks and swings back, punching Marty in the face and knocking him unconscious.
**Marty is lying unconscious on the ground.
**Joe proceeds to stomp on Marty’s head, injuring him seriously, and sending him to the hospital.
**Marty files a pro-se civil suit against Joe (who retains an attorney), alleging battery and referring only to the head stomping after he was knocked unconscious.
**Joe’s Lawyers seek to demonstrate self defense on the part of Joe. Joe produces witnesses that say Marty attacked Joe. Joe’s mother also says that Marty insulted her.
**Marty files a motion to suppress any evidence or testimony regarding the fight and who started it, since with Joe’s witnesses, will contaminate a traditional “deep south” jury that, regardless of the legal aspects, will make their decision based on their notion of “Marty had it comin. Got what he deserved. A man doesn’t insult another man’s mother.”
** The judge denies the motion to suppress.

Is this correct? Or is Marty correct in asserting that the battery after he was unconscious is a separate act. He had no apprehension because he was unconscious. He had no means to react or defend himself. It also is irrelevant who started the confrontation or who the assailant was. Because no matter who it was, one of them was knocked out, and there was no further threat. The fight was over.

It seems a judge doesn’t agree that battery can be separate from assault.
Are you Marty or Joe or Joe's mother? If you are not one of these three, who are you and why is this a matter of concern?

You appear to have insulted all of those who sit on juries in the "Deep South," by the way. Most jurors take their responsibility seriously.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Are you Marty or Joe or Joe's mother? If you are not one of these three, who are you and why is this a matter of concern?

You appear to have insulted all of those who sit on juries in the "Deep South," by the way. Most jurors take their responsibility seriously.
Aw, come on. They don’t even have indoor plumbing South of the mason Dixon line, do they?

Obviously just kidding.



I think op is a student. Otherwise he wouldn’t have made the error of using the generic descriptions of assault (perceived threat) and battery (contact) rather than realizing Alabama does not use the term battery (with a very very few exceptions not applicable to this sort of situation) in their statutes.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Aw, come on. They donÂ’t even have indoor plumbing South of the mason Dixon line, do they?

Obviously just kidding.



I think op is a student. Otherwise he wouldnÂ’t have made the error of using the generic descriptions of assault (perceived threat) and battery (contact) rather than realizing Alabama does not use the term battery (with a very very few exceptions not applicable to this sort of situation) in their statutes.
If bamakertracer were a student, Marty, Joe and Mom probably would be A, B, and C - and there would be no derogatory comments added about jurors. I would also hope a question asked by a student would be better. :)

Here is a link to Alabama's Criminal Code, Title 13A, Chapter 6, Article 2, Offenses Involving Danger to the Person, Assault: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2016/title-13a/chapter-6/article-2/

I am curious if the police were called and if one or both of the brawlers were charged.
 

bamakertracer

Junior Member
If bamakertracer were a student, Marty, Joe and Mom probably would be A, B, and C - and there would be no derogatory comments added about jurors. I would also hope a question asked by a student would be better. :)

Here is a link to Alabama's Criminal Code, Title 13A, Chapter 6, Article 2, Offenses Involving Danger to the Person, Assault: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2016/title-13a/chapter-6/article-2/

I am curious if the police were called and if one or both of the brawlers were charged.
Criminal definitions are irrelevant to civil actions. This is not a criminal case. It is a civil case. If you disagree, please provide resources. This is supposed to be a help forum....right? Doesn't seem like that is the case with the comments thus far.

The comment about southern juries isn't derogatory at all. Southern juries are famous for invoking their own sense of justice as opposed to what the law itself states.

The point here is that the battery took place beyond any threat. The "brawl" or however yall choose to see it, is irrelevant. Because the battery took place after it was over. Hence, a motion to suppress the prior actions to avoid any prejudice or distraction from the claim.
 

bamakertracer

Junior Member
Are you Marty or Joe or Joe's mother? If you are not one of these three, who are you and why is this a matter of concern?

You appear to have insulted all of those who sit on juries in the "Deep South," by the way. Most jurors take their responsibility seriously.
Why does it matter to you who I am or am not in the scenario. This is supposed to be a help forum....right? Let's assume it is something I observed and it seemed quite wrong, so I am rooting out the legal elements as best I can.

And I see you are from Michigan. I don't think you really have much basis to speak about deep south juries. More times than I can count, have I seen crazy jury decisions that were clearly driven by a collective sense of imposing their own justice. Many times they get overturned on appeal in a higher court.

So the question remains, and references of some kind to look into would be appreciated. Why is the battery not considered separate by the judge, when it occurred after the confrontation had ended?

To say that the events leading up to that are material, is to say that there is an excuse for maiming someone, that is of no threat.

This is a civil case. The only point in question is, did one person cause the damages to the other, or not? The only possible release of liability would be self-defense. How can it be self defense when the plaintiff was unconscious when the battery occurred?
 

bamakertracer

Junior Member
you need to start with looking up the legal definitions of assault and battery within Alabama law. States define the terms differently and you appear to not be using alabama’s definitions
You seem to be referring to the criminal definitions, which have nothing in common with a civil action. I actually verified that aspect with a former judge that I know here. He also seemed perplexed by the judges denial of the motion to suppress.

But if you have definitions under Alabama law as it applies to civil actions, please provide info.

What is up with this forum? It is supposed to be a help forum and yet...no help...just snarky comments. It would be nice to actually have productive and helpful discussion.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
It seems a judge doesn’t agree that battery can be separate from assault.
The judge was correct. The entire sequence of events in that conflict, including what started it, is relevant and it would be improper to suppress the evidence of part of that sequence as that then distorts what occurred. It is the job of the jury to look at all the relevant evidence, decide what evidence to believe and what not to believe, and what weight to be put on it. Marty’s argument that the court should do it because, in essence, southern jury members are too stupid and biased to be good jurors was never going to fly because (1) the presumption is that jurors are competent to render appropriate verdicts; (2) Marty almost certainly did not cite any anything credible to back up his claims that southern jurors are not competent; and (3) the parties have the opportunity in their voir dire of the jury panel to weed out any obviously biased jurors. The movant, though he may not know, may have harmed himself with the court by his implicit slam of southerners generally, which is not a great way to litigate a case. Had I been his lawyer, I would never have filed such a motion. It would guaranteed to be denied and would have the potential to harm my reputation (and my client’s) by making it.

I would suggest Marty get a lawyer if he wants his best shot at winning this case because this motion demonstrates he does not understand the law or litigation all that well and going up against a party represented by a lawyer will put him at a distinct disadvantage. I’m quite sure Marty will not be pleased with my comments, but I don’t think sugar coating my reply would do Marty any good. I believe a frank assessment will serve him better in the long run.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
You seem to be referring to the criminal definitions, which have nothing in common with a civil action. I actually verified that aspect with a former judge that I know here. He also seemed perplexed by the judges denial of the motion to suppress.

But if you have definitions under Alabama law as it applies to civil actions, please provide info.

What is up with this forum? It is supposed to be a help forum and yet...no help...just snarky comments. It would be nice to actually have productive and helpful discussion.
Yes I am and unless you can show Alabama separates them for civil matters they are likely to use the criminal definitions since the suit at hand is based on the criminal acts. There is no such thing as civil battery or civil assault. The action at hand may be civil in nature but it is based on the criminal activity.

But whether you wish to use the separate definitions, it matters not since it would still not allow for a suppression of the events prior to the head stomping. As taxing matters states, the head stomping flows from the events that occurred prior to it so it would be improper to take a snap shot out of the movie and make a determination solely on that one event.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
And I see you are from Michigan. I don't think you really have much basis to speak about deep south juries. More times than I can count, have I seen crazy jury decisions that were clearly driven by a collective sense of imposing their own justice. Many times they get overturned on appeal in a higher court.
talk about snark.

So the question remains, and references of some kind to look into would be appreciated. Why is the battery not considered separate by the judge, when it occurred after the confrontation had ended?
How does the judge know it took place after anything without the surroinding activities?

[
To say that the events leading up to that are material, is to say that there is an excuse for maiming someone, that is of no threat.
to if ignore what lead up to that point woiuld be selective use of facts that may or may not improperly frame the acts in question. If one fears showing all of their cards, it’s usually based on having a bad hand.

This is a civil case. The only point in question is, did one person cause the damages to the other, or not? The only possible release of liability would be self-defense. How can it be self defense when the plaintiff was unconscious when the battery occurred?
ya see, that’s your problem. That isn’t the only question.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Why does it matter to you who I am or am not in the scenario. This is supposed to be a help forum....right? Let's assume it is something I observed and it seemed quite wrong, so I am rooting out the legal elements as best I can.

And I see you are from Michigan. I don't think you really have much basis to speak about deep south juries. More times than I can count, have I seen crazy jury decisions that were clearly driven by a collective sense of imposing their own justice. Many times they get overturned on appeal in a higher court.

So the question remains, and references of some kind to look into would be appreciated. Why is the battery not considered separate by the judge, when it occurred after the confrontation had ended?

To say that the events leading up to that are material, is to say that there is an excuse for maiming someone, that is of no threat.

This is a civil case. The only point in question is, did one person cause the damages to the other, or not? The only possible release of liability would be self-defense. How can it be self defense when the plaintiff was unconscious when the battery occurred?
Yes. I am from Michigan. But there is no wall that has prevented me from entering other states, including those in the South, and there is nothing that has prevented me from learning the laws of other states.

Because you seem quite clueless when it comes to the law, I recommend you (or whoever is involved in the civil action) seek out legal assistance in your area. Let the attorney speak for you because if you open your mouth, I fear your case is doomed.
 
Last edited:

bamakertracer

Junior Member
The judge was correct. The entire sequence of events in that conflict, including what started it, is relevant and it would be improper to suppress the evidence of part of that sequence as that then distorts what occurred. It is the job of the jury to look at all the relevant evidence, decide what evidence to believe and what not to believe, and what weight to be put on it. Marty’s argument that the court should do it because, in essence, southern jury members are too stupid and biased to be good jurors was never going to fly because (1) the presumption is that jurors are competent to render appropriate verdicts; (2) Marty almost certainly did not cite any anything credible to back up his claims that southern jurors are not competent; and (3) the parties have the opportunity in their voir dire of the jury panel to weed out any obviously biased jurors. The movant, though he may not know, may have harmed himself with the court by his implicit slam of southerners generally, which is not a great way to litigate a case. Had I been his lawyer, I would never have filed such a motion. It would guaranteed to be denied and would have the potential to harm my reputation (and my client’s) by making it.

I would suggest Marty get a lawyer if he wants his best shot at winning this case because this motion demonstrates he does not understand the law or litigation all that well and going up against a party represented by a lawyer will put him at a distinct disadvantage. I’m quite sure Marty will not be pleased with my comments, but I don’t think sugar coating my reply would do Marty any good. I believe a frank assessment will serve him better in the long run.
You make a lot of assumptions. All incorrect ones. And you offer zero input, nor any legal reference of any kind.

There is clear evidence that Marty was struck after he was unconscious. Two witnesses that had to pull him off of Marty are on record.

How the conflict started is entirely irrelevant. Because whatever prior conflict occurred, had ended.

And again, you provide ZERO legal basis for your statements. None.

It is not that I do not like it or not, it is that you are simply making off hand statements that are irrational and no substantiated. Not one case citation or legal citation of any kind to support what you are saying.

Wow. What a helpful forum.
 

quincy

Senior Member
You make a lot of assumptions. All incorrect ones. And you offer zero input, nor any legal reference of any kind.

There is clear evidence that Marty was struck after he was unconscious. Two witnesses that had to pull him off of Marty are on record.

How the conflict started is entirely irrelevant. Because whatever prior conflict occurred, had ended.

And again, you provide ZERO legal basis for your statements. None.

It is not that I do not like it or not, it is that you are simply making off hand statements that are irrational and no substantiated. Not one case citation or legal citation of any kind to support what you are saying.

Wow. What a helpful forum.
We are willing to help those who come to this forum with legitimate questions. We are less willing to help those with unrealistic or unreasonable expectations about the merits of their cases.

I suggest at this point that you find an attorney in your area and pay him/her to listen to you. You are not impressing the attorneys or other members of this forum all that much.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top