Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantmens reaappellant

defendanttrialbeyond a reasonable doubtmens reaappellant

Related Cases

Perez Hernandez v. United States, 286 A.3d 990

Facts

On July 8, 2014, during a gathering to watch a World Cup soccer game, the defendant, appellant Perez Hernandez, engaged in a conversation with Mr. Tarawallie while touching him, despite being asked to stop. After a series of interactions, including a poke to Mr. Tarawallie's face, a physical altercation ensued, culminating in the defendant striking Mr. Tarawallie with a beer bottle. The incident led to the defendant's arrest and subsequent conviction for simple assault.

On July 8, 2014, a group of men — including appellant — gathered at the apartment of Alimamy Tarawallie to watch a World Cup soccer game. After the game, the group moved outside; someone went to a nearby store and returned with a large bottle of Guinness. While drinking beer from the bottle, appellant approached Mr. Tarawallie and began to speak with him.

Issue

Whether an offensive touching, performed with minimal force and not of a sexual nature, constitutes a criminal assault under D.C. law.

We must decide whether an offensive touching, performed with minimal force and not of a sexual nature, may be a criminal assault.

Rule

Nonviolent offensive touching can be classified as simple assault, and the mens rea requirement for the offensiveness of a touch may be satisfied by applying the Model Penal Code concepts of purpose and knowledge.

Nonviolent offensive touching, performed with minimal force and not of a sexual nature, is simple assault, and for attempted-battery assaults, the mens rea requirement for the offensiveness of a touch may be satisfied by applying the Model Penal Code concepts of purpose and knowledge.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the established legal principles regarding assault. It determined that the defendant's actions, particularly the second poke after being warned, indicated an understanding that the contact would be offensive. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct met the criteria for simple assault as it involved intentional touching that was offensive to a reasonable person.

The trial court reasoned that 'a poke' would not usually result in an assault charge. 'I think if we had one poke that it would not meet the requirements of something that would be objectively offensive to a person of reasonable sensibility ….' However, a second poke following a warning was different.

Conclusion

The court vacated the previous ruling and remanded the case for further findings, affirming that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault.

Ultimately, Judge Wynn was not persuaded 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant hit the complaining witness with a bottle' or that 'the defendant poked the complaining witness in the eyes.' The court did find, however, that appellant 'poked' Mr. Tarawallie 'somewhere in his body' despite being admonished not to do so.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the conviction for simple assault based on the defendant's offensive touching.

The division majority concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for simple assault under an attempted battery theory.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1962 WL 70749, 6 Fed.R.Serv.2d 630

Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680

Orlowski v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 723

In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelson, 225 Wis.2d 221, 591 N.W.2d 843

Ruiz v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 1421 (Mem), 212 L.Ed.2d 406