People v. Yslas
27 Cal. 630 (1865) (1865)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An assault is complete when an individual, acting with the intent to commit a violent injury and the present ability to do so, makes an overt attempt by advancing on another in a threatening manner that would cause a person of ordinary firmness to fear immediate harm, even if the perpetrator is interrupted or the victim escapes before physical contact is made.
Facts:
- The defendant, Yslas, was charged with assaulting a female prosecutrix with intent to murder.
- During the incident, Yslas advanced toward the prosecutrix while holding an axe.
- Yslas moved toward her in a threatening manner, clearly indicating an immediate intent to strike her.
- Before Yslas could reach her or make physical contact, the prosecutrix escaped through a door.
- Yslas came sufficiently close to the prosecutrix to cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe she would be struck instantly if she did not retreat.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted in a trial court for assault with intent to commit murder.
- At trial, the defense offered testimony to impeach the prosecutrix by showing her 'notoriously bad character for chastity,' which the court rejected.
- The defense also requested jury instructions defining assault in a way that would require the assailant to be uninterrupted, which the court refused.
- A jury convicted the defendant as charged.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 criminal assault occur when a person advances on another with a weapon and a clear intent to strike, but is prevented from making physical contact because the victim escapes?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanderson, C. J.
Yes, a criminal assault occurs even if the perpetrator is prevented from making physical contact. An assault requires more than a mere menace; it requires violence 'begun to be executed.' This standard is met when there is a clear intent to commit violence accompanied by acts that, if not interrupted, would result in personal injury. The law does not require the assailant to be within striking distance; the assault is complete if the assailant advances with intent and comes near enough to cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe they will instantly receive a blow unless they retreat or defend themselves. The statutory element of 'present ability' is not negated simply because the act was prevented. In this case, the defendant's act of rushing the prosecutrix with an axe constituted a complete assault, notwithstanding her successful escape.
Concurring - Currey, J.
Yes, the defendant's actions constituted a complete assault and the judgment should be affirmed. While the result is correct, the majority errs in its reasoning on witness impeachment by restricting the inquiry to character for truth and veracity. The better rule, supported by English and other state authorities, allows for a broader inquiry into a witness's general moral character. However, the trial court's ruling was still correct in this instance because the defendant's specific offer to prove the prosecutrix's bad character for chastity was too narrow and improper under either the restrictive rule or the broader one. Because the evidence was properly excluded, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal definition of assault, emphasizing that the crime is complete upon the menacing attempt, not the successful battery. By holding that an assailant's 'present ability' is not defeated by a victim's escape, the court shifts the focus from the ultimate outcome to the perpetrator's intent and conduct as perceived by a reasonable victim. This precedent makes it easier to prosecute failed attacks, establishing that the core of the offense lies in the creation of a reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury. The case solidifies a broader interpretation of assault that protects victims who manage to evade harm.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Yslas