Beach v. Hancock
27 N.H. 223 (1853) (1853)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An assault is committed when a person's intentional and threatening actions cause another to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, regardless of the actor's actual ability to inflict the threatened harm.
Facts:
- The defendant, Smith, pointed a pistol at another person.
- Smith's actions were done in a threatening manner.
- Unbeknownst to the victim, the pistol was not loaded.
- The victim, not knowing the pistol was unloaded, was put in fear of being shot and suffering personal injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The State prosecuted Smith for assault in a New Hampshire trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a guilty verdict against Smith.
- Smith appealed the judgment entered on the verdict to the state's highest court, challenging the trial court's legal ruling on what constitutes an assault.
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 a person commit an assault by pointing an unloaded pistol at another in a threatening manner, thereby causing the other person to fear for their safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilchrist, C. J.
Yes. Pointing an unloaded pistol at another in a threatening manner constitutes an assault if it places the victim in reasonable fear of bodily harm. The court reasoned that a primary purpose of civil society and law is to ensure people feel secure from unlawful assaults. A person's right to live without being put in fear of personal harm is paramount. When a pistol is pointed at someone, the victim has no way of knowing whether it is loaded, making it entirely reasonable to fear for one's life. The court held that the law protects against this creation of reasonable fear, and that the business of society could not function if such threatening acts were permitted. The court distinguished several English cases by noting they were decided on specific statutory language regarding 'loaded' arms or on procedural pleading grounds, not on the common law definition of assault.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'apparent ability' standard for the tort and crime of assault, shifting the legal focus from the defendant's actual ability to inflict harm to the victim's reasonable perception of that ability. It prioritizes the victim's right to be free from fear and apprehension of harm, thereby broadening the definition of assault. This precedent means that a defendant's secret inability to cause harm is not a defense if their actions would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. This principle significantly impacts future assault cases by centering the analysis on the victim's subjective experience, provided that their fear is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Beach v. Hancock