People v. Gavin T.
66 Cal. App. 4th 238, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6601, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Criminal assault requires either a specific intent to touch or strike the victim, or a general criminal intent to perform an act that is inherently dangerous to human life; mere negligence or recklessness leading to an unintended injury is insufficient for a criminal assault conviction.
Facts:
- Gavin T., a 15-year-old student, was eating lunch with friends outside his school.
- Gavin T. shared an apple with a friend.
- Gavin T. threw the half-eaten apple core toward a classroom wall, intending for it to splatter there.
- A teacher was unexpectedly inside the classroom, holding a special tryout for the school choir.
- The thrown apple core sailed through a 12-inch gap in a slowly closing classroom door.
- The apple struck the teacher in the head, causing her to fall to the floor and lose consciousness for a few minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- A petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging that Gavin T. committed an assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury or with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).
- The matter proceeded to a contested hearing in the juvenile court, where the victim, Gavin T., and other witnesses testified.
- The juvenile court found that Gavin T. did not intend to hit the teacher with the thrown apple, but merely intended to see the apple splatter against a wall.
- Despite its finding of no intent to hit the victim, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true, stating its intent to send a “message” to appellant’s classmates.
- Gavin T. appealed the juvenile court’s finding to the California Court of Appeal.
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 throwing a partially eaten apple towards a wall, which then accidentally strikes a person, constitute criminal assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury or with a deadly weapon, when the thrower had no intent to hit the person and the act was not inherently dangerous to human life?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, P. J.
No, throwing an apple core without specific intent to strike a victim and where the act itself is not inherently dangerous to human life does not constitute criminal assault under Penal Code section 245. The court reasoned that the crime of assault necessitates either a specific intent to batter, hit, strike, or wrongfully touch a victim, or a general criminal intent to perform an act whose reasonable and probable consequences are inherently dangerous to human life. The juvenile court explicitly found that Gavin T. did not intend to hit the teacher, but merely intended the apple to splatter against a wall. The act of throwing a half-eaten apple at a wall, even if negligent or reckless, is not considered inherently dangerous to human life in the same manner as firing a cannon at an inhabited castle or driving an elephant into a crowded judicial conference. The court emphasized the crucial distinction between civil tort liability, which might be predicated on negligence, and criminal assault, which strictly requires criminal intent. It declined to establish a precedent equating a discarded apple core with a deadly weapon or a means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, and further stressed that courts should not disregard the law by classifying noncriminal behavior as a felonious crime merely to send an educational message of disapproval.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the mens rea (criminal intent) requirement for criminal assault under California law, sharply differentiating it from civil tort liability where mere negligence or recklessness might suffice for a battery. It reinforces that specific intent to batter or a general intent to commit an inherently dangerous act is a prerequisite for criminal culpability. The ruling serves to prevent the overreach of criminal statutes into accidental injuries resulting from minor, non-inherently dangerous acts, which is particularly relevant in juvenile cases. It underscores the importance of a true finding of criminal intent, thereby upholding fundamental principles of criminal justice and preventing convictions based on judicial messaging rather than legal fact.
