State v. Sherer
2002 MT 337, 60 P.3d 1010, 313 Mont. 299 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person commits aggravated assault by purposely or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to another, even if the person's only conduct is communication that deceptively induces the victim to inflict the injury upon themselves.
Facts:
- From Florida, Joseph Sherer placed a series of random phone calls to approximately forty women in Bozeman, Montana.
- Using various aliases, Sherer impersonated a doctor, falsely claiming he was treating a relative of the woman for a hereditary disease and that she might be at risk.
- Sherer asked the women to perform self-tests on their bodies, instructing them to do destructive things under the guise of medical diagnosis.
- Most women did not harm themselves, but three did follow his instructions.
- One woman, following Sherer's specific instructions during a phone call, cut off her own left nipple as a supposed medical self-examination.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Joseph Sherer in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, with multiple offenses, including one count of Aggravated Assault.
- Sherer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Aggravated Assault charge, contending the alleged facts could not legally constitute the offense.
- The District Court, a trial court, denied Sherer's motion.
- Sherer pled guilty to all counts but expressly reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss.
- Sherer appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Court of Montana.
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 defendant's conduct satisfy the causation element for aggravated assault when the defendant, through deceptive communication over the telephone, intentionally induces a victim to inflict serious bodily injury upon themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rice
Yes. A defendant's communication can constitute the requisite 'conduct' and 'cause' for an aggravated assault conviction if it purposely or knowingly results in serious bodily injury to another. Under Montana law, 'conduct' includes any form of communication, and it is the 'cause' of a result if, without the conduct, the result would not have occurred. Here, Sherer’s deceptive instructions, though delivered by phone, were the direct and intended cause of the victim's injury; the injury would not have happened 'but for' his communication. The court rejected the argument that the victim’s own act broke the chain of causation, because her action flowed directly from Sherer’s instructions and was the precise result he intended. Unlike cases involving unforeseeable consequences, Sherer's intent to cause the specific injury was clear, making the result neither remote nor accidental. The statutes do not require physical proximity or the direct application of force; communication alone is sufficient to establish criminal liability for aggravated assault.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of causation in assault statutes, affirming that criminal liability can attach even without physical contact or proximity. By defining communication as 'conduct,' the court expands the traditional understanding of assault to include harm caused by deception and manipulation. This precedent establishes that a victim's act of self-harm does not serve as an intervening cause that absolves the defendant when that act is the direct and intended result of the defendant's inducement. The ruling will impact future cases involving psychological manipulation, fraud, or deception leading to physical injury, making it more difficult for defendants to argue that the victim's compliance breaks the causal chain.
