The legal definition of aggravated assault is an assault that causes serious bodily harm. The p [art that states ‘bodily harm’ scrutinized well includes all harms, including psychological. For example, in the State of New York, if a robbery is committed where the perpetrators do not in any way harm the victims but instead brandish their guns in an attempt to intimidate others to submission, they can be charged with aggravated assault. The aggravated assault definition, therefore, charges more of the intention than the actual act. Legal scholars refer to aggravated assault as a general intent crime. For example, brandishing a gun menacingly might be referred to as aggravated assault. Also, just holding a weapon in a manner suggesting that one is ready for the next action, which might be to harm another, might be referred to as aggravated assault. The goal of the prosecution in aggravated assault cases is rather to prove that the charged intended to do the physical act, not the act itself.
Aggravated assault, although a grave crime, is less than a felonious assault. In fact, if the judge or jury finds that there were mitigating circumstances which forced the charge to result in aggravated assault, then it can be even downgraded much further. For example, if one enters a store and finds that one individual is threatening to ‘kill’ the cashier and any other person in the store –then such provocation would be considered if one brandishes their gun in an attempt to either quell the situation or eliminate the threat in the face of imminent danger. Provocations such as finding one’s spouse in a compromising situation that reasonably suggests adultery may also have felonious assault downgraded to aggravated assault.
From the scenario given, there is no doubt that Driver 1 actions can be charged as aggravated assault. He stood beside Driver 2’s car and displayed his weapon. Driver 2 could have been very intimidated and fearful for their life. Fear for one’s life and the subsequent display of a gun by a driver can well be put as aggravated assault. It can also be aggravated assault when one considers it a downgrade from a felonious assault, which would have been driver one actually shooting driver 2. In the scenario, Driver 1 did not actually shoot, but the intention was present, and if he could have shot Driver 2, it would be out of the mitigating circumstances, which in this case would be broadly described as ‘road rage’ (Robert, 2001).
All defences that Driver 1 has can be drawn from the mitigating circumstances. He may first claim self-defence. He might state that he had reasonable suspicion that Driver 2 was out to cause harm to him. He might argue that the act of showing his gun was to deter Driver 2 thoughts about causing damage to him. This is a possible defence because deterrence falls within warning or showing the intent of retaliation amid imminent danger. Driver 1 can also categorically state that he had no intent to use the gun whatsoever. He can claim that he only showed it so that driver two may know that he had the deterrence capabilities for all threatening actions contemplated. These defences are referred to as crime prevention instructions. The crime prevention instruction should be done in a different tense, as ruled by the court in Almeida v. State. If Driver 1 had shown his weapon in the first instance, then his defences would have sufficed as plausible. Otherwise, it would lead to a conviction of aggravated assault.
Reference
Almeida v. State CA-CR 2014-0267
Blomquist, R. F. (2001). American “Road Rage”: A Scary and Tangled Cultural-Legal Pastiche. Nebraska Law Review, 80. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol80/iss1/3
write