Adams v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Chesapeake
534 S.E.2d 347 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A battery can be committed by causing an intangible substance, such as a light beam, to make contact with a person, provided the contact is objectively offensive or forcible and results in a physical consequence or corporeal hurt. This contact constitutes a 'touching' for the purposes of battery law.

Facts:

Jeremy Britt Adams, a high school student, purchased a six-dollar laser light from a convenience store.
Two days later, on September 22, 1998, Adams was at his high school, approximately 150 feet away from Sergeant Steven Giles and Sergeant Adams.
Adams had a friendly relationship with Sergeant Adams but did not get along well with Sergeant Giles.
Adams waved the laser light in the direction of the two officers.
The laser beam struck Sergeant Giles in his right eye, causing him to feel a 'stinging sensation' and to 'see red'.
When Giles confronted him, Adams stated, 'It can’t hurt you,' and handed over the laser light.
A doctor examined Giles' eye the next morning and found 'heavy irritation' but no other injury.
Adams testified that he was 'just goofing off' to get Sergeant Adams' attention and did not intend to strike Giles.

Procedural Posture:

The Commonwealth of Virginia prosecuted Jeremy Britt Adams for assault and battery on a law enforcement officer in a Virginia trial court.
The case was decided in a bench trial, where a judge acted as the fact-finder.
At the close of the prosecution's evidence, Adams made a motion to strike the evidence, which the trial court overruled.
After the defense presented its case, Adams renewed his motion to strike, which was again overruled by the trial court.
The trial court found Adams guilty of the charged offense.
Adams, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, with the Commonwealth as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does directing a laser beam into a person's eye, causing a physical sensation and irritation, constitute a 'touching' sufficient to support a conviction for battery?

Opinions:

Majority - Frank, Judge

Yes. Directing a laser beam into a person's eye that causes a physical sensation constitutes a 'touching' sufficient for a battery conviction. The court held that battery is the actual infliction of corporal hurt on another by any means set in motion by the defendant, and the law is intended to protect the 'sacredness of the person.' For an intangible substance like light to constitute a touching, it must make objectively offensive or forcible contact that results in a physical consequence or corporeal hurt. In this case, the laser beam made contact with Sergeant Giles' eye, causing a stinging sensation and physical irritation, which satisfied the requirement for a touching. The court also found sufficient evidence of intent, reasoning that the fact-finder was entitled to disbelieve Adams' self-serving testimony and infer intent from his actions and his acknowledged poor relationship with Sergeant Giles.

Dissenting - Lemons, Judge

No. Shining a low-intensity laser from a novelty keychain should not be considered a 'touching' sufficient for a battery conviction because it unwisely expands the common law definition. The dissent argued there was insufficient evidence of intent, as Adams could not be reasonably expected to know that a six-dollar novelty item had the potential for an offensive touching. More significantly, redefining 'touching' to include intangible objects is a legislative function, not a judicial one. The majority's new rule could lead to absurd prosecutions for actions like using high-beam headlights, taking flash photographs, or playing loud car stereos, and any criminalization of such conduct should come from specific legislative statutes.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the common law definition of 'touching' for the crime of battery to include contact by intangible substances like light. By doing so, it creates a new precedent for how courts can handle cases involving modern technology that can affect a person without direct physical force. The case establishes a new test focusing on the objective offensiveness of the contact and its physical effect on the victim. As the dissent highlights, this ruling opens the door to potential prosecutions for a wide range of conduct not previously considered criminal battery, forcing future courts to determine the limits of this newly expanded doctrine.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Adams v. Commonwealth (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature