An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

#31

Post by JALLEN »

bauer wrote:
JALLEN wrote:
bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.
Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.
I get the point you bring up about each state having varying laws in there penal code, but there is always something of equivalency. Your example of CA fits the same bill with "assault with a deadly weapon" which is what this incident would have been if it took place in CA.

It looks as though NC has Felonious Assault with a Deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting serious injury (N.C. §14-32) which it self could be punished with varying felony "classes" ... the discharging of weapon into an occupied building was one of the charges he drew and it is also punishable with a felony. Either way law enforcement probably could have leveled more charges on the guy and didn't.
It is true that there are similarities of approach, even sometimes almost word for word definitions the same. It is conceivable that state court decisions interpreting them might result in variations between identically worded statutory definitions. The devil is always in the details and sweeping generalities are only that. Conduct that might get you a aggravated assault conviction might not get you charged someplace else, or even worse punishment upon conviction. Heck, that might be true even across Texas. Conduct that gets you jailed in Bandera might not even be charged in Houston! That's more to different interpretations than wording.

I guess all I was pointing out is that the criminal law, especially definition of what constitutes an offense, is not exactly the same everywhere.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”