People v. Schacker
175 Misc.2d 834, 670 NYS2d 308 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a participant's conduct during an athletic competition to constitute a criminal act, the prosecution must show the act was intended to inflict an injury unrelated to the competition and resulted in injuries so severe as to be unacceptable in the context of the sport.
Facts:
- Robert Schacker and Andrew Morenberg were participating in an ice hockey game at the Superior Ice Rink.
- After a play concluded and the referee's whistle had blown, Morenberg was standing near the goal net.
- Schacker approached Morenberg from behind and struck him on the back of the neck.
- The force of the strike caused Morenberg's head to hit the crossbar of the goal net.
- Morenberg was initially described as sustaining a concussion, headaches, blurred vision, and memory loss.
- A subsequent medical examination, including an X-ray and CAT scan, showed no damage, and the final diagnosis was a "Contusion Forehead."
Procedural Posture:
- The People of New York charged Robert Schacker in a trial court with assault in the third degree by filing a misdemeanor information.
- Schacker pleaded not guilty to the charge.
- Schacker filed a motion to dismiss the information in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40.
- The trial court held a 'Clayton' hearing to consider the motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the dismissal of a third-degree assault charge in the interest of justice when the alleged assault occurred between two participants during a hockey game, the conduct was connected to the competition, and the resulting injuries were minor?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawrence Donohue, J.
Yes. The dismissal of the assault charge is required in the interest of justice. The court reasoned that participants in athletic competitions legally assume the risk of injuries that are known, apparent, and reasonably foreseeable consequences of that sport. While players do not assume the risk of reckless or intentional conduct completely unrelated to the game, much of the intentional physical contact in sports like hockey would constitute a crime under normal standards. Applying criminal law to such conduct would undermine the public policy of encouraging free and vigorous athletic participation. For a criminal charge to be appropriate, the act must be unrelated to the competition and the resulting injury must be so severe that it is unacceptable in the normal course of the game. In this case, the contact, while occurring after the whistle, was not shown to be disconnected from the competition, and the resulting injury was minor, falling short of the heightened standard required for criminal prosecution.
Analysis:
This case is significant for importing the civil tort doctrine of 'assumption of risk' into the criminal law context to analyze conduct during sporting events. By doing so, the court establishes a high threshold for criminal liability for athletes, requiring proof that the conduct was both entirely outside the scope of the game and resulted in unusually severe harm. This decision effectively carves out a protective space for the inherent violence and aggression in contact sports, reinforcing the idea that such disputes are better handled by league rules or civil suits than by the criminal justice system. It sets a precedent that makes it difficult to prosecute athletes for in-game altercations that do not result in egregious injury.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Schacker