Other Crimes Against the Person: Assault, Battery, Kidnapping, and Sex Offenses

Battery is the unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching. It is a general-intent crime: the defendant need only intend the act that caused the contact, not the resulting harm, and recklessness or even criminal negligence can suffice. The force need not be applied directly — setting a trap, poisoning food, or using a weapon all count, and the touching can be to anything connected to the victim (knocking a plate from someone's hand). Assault comes in two forms.

The first is an attempted battery, a specific-intent crime requiring the intent to commit a battery plus a substantial step — here a defendant who swings and misses commits assault even if the victim never saw the blow. The second form is the intentional creation in the victim of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm; this form requires the victim's actual awareness, so it cannot be committed against a sleeping or oblivious person. Words alone are generally insufficient to create apprehension.

Aggravating factors elevate these crimes: use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, infliction of serious bodily injury, or commission against a protected victim (police officer, child). In California, PC 240 defines assault, PC 242 battery, and PC 245 assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to produce great bodily injury.

False imprisonment is the unlawful confinement of a person without valid consent and without legal authority. The confinement must be complete — a partial obstruction the victim can reasonably and safely avoid is not false imprisonment — and threats or a show of force can supply the restraint. Kidnapping is aggravated false imprisonment: an unlawful confinement that involves either some movement of the victim (asportation) or concealment of the victim in a secret place.

California has a notable distinction: under its case law, the asportation must be of a substantial distance and not merely incidental to an associated underlying crime; moving a robbery victim a few feet within a store does not satisfy simple kidnapping, though 'aggravated kidnapping' (kidnapping for robbery, ransom, or to commit certain sex offenses) applies a more flexible standard that asks whether the movement increased the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the underlying crime. Mayhem at common law was the dismemberment or disablement of a body part; modern statutes (California PC 203) extend it to permanent disfigurement.

Because false imprisonment is a lesser-included offense of kidnapping, a defendant cannot be convicted of both for the same conduct.

At common law, rape was unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman, not the defendant's wife, without her consent, accomplished by force or threat of force, or where consent was prevented by unconsciousness, intoxication, or fraud as to the nature of the act. Modern statutes are gender-neutral, abolish the marital exemption, and define a range of conduct. The key MBE trap is statutory rape: intercourse with a person under the age of consent is a strict-liability offense as to age, meaning a reasonable and honest mistake about the victim's age is generally NO defense, and consent by the minor is irrelevant.

California's middle ground is worth knowing precisely: California recognizes a narrow 'reasonable mistake of age' defense (People v. Hernandez) for some unlawful-intercourse charges, but it is unavailable where the victim is below a statutory threshold and for the most serious lewd-act offenses against young children (PC 288), which remain strict liability. Other tested offenses include sexual battery (touching an intimate part for sexual gratification without consent) and lewd acts.

When analyzing a sex-offense essay, separate the consent/force question (general criminal-law analysis) from the age question (strict liability), because the defenses available differ sharply between the two.

Several refinements convert a borderline answer into a correct one. Aggravation of assault and battery is element-driven: California Penal Code section 243 grades battery upward where the victim is a peace officer, a custodial officer, or other protected person, and Penal Code section 243(d) creates battery with serious bodily injury; Penal Code section 245(a)(1) reaches assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (the well-known 'ADW'), and section 245(a)(4) covers force likely to cause great bodily injury even without a weapon.

Note that under California law an assault does not require a present ability traps candidates: section 240 requires a present ability to commit a violent injury, so an unloaded gun pointed at a victim who does not know it is unloaded may be charged as assault by apprehension theory but can fail the attempted-battery theory for lack of present ability — a clean MBE/essay distinction.

Consent is a defense to some crimes against the person but tightly cabined: consent negates battery in the context of lawful athletic contact or ordinary social touching, but it is no defense to a serious aggravated battery, to deadly force, or where the victim cannot legally consent (minors, the incapacitated).

The MPC differs in instructive ways: it consolidates assault and battery into a single graded 'assault' offense (simple and aggravated), and it treats reckless or negligent causation of bodily injury within that scheme, whereas the common law keeps battery (a completed touching) and assault (attempt or apprehension) doctrinally separate. For kidnapping, the California two-track structure is essential. Simple kidnapping (Penal Code section 207) requires asportation of a substantial distance, and the People v. Daniels and Martinez line holds the movement must not be merely incidental to an associated crime.

Aggravated kidnapping — for ransom, robbery, carjacking, or to commit a listed sex offense (Penal Code section 209) — applies a two-part test asking whether the movement was more than incidental AND increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the underlying offense, exposing the defendant to life sentences. Mayhem (Penal Code section 203) and the aggravated form of torture-mayhem (section 205) require a malicious act causing permanent disfigurement or disablement; mere temporary injury is insufficient, another recurring trap.

On sex offenses, California reorganized its scheme effective recent reforms but the testable core endures: rape (Penal Code section 261) covers nonconsensual intercourse accomplished by force, fear, fraud, or where the victim is incapacitated; the marital exemption is abolished; unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (section 261.5) is the statutory-rape provision where the narrow Hernandez reasonable-mistake-of-age defense may apply; and lewd acts on a child under 14 (section 288) impose strict liability as to age with no mistake defense.

A final synthesis trap: a single violent encounter can generate overlapping charges (assault, battery, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery), so on an essay identify each completed offense, apply lesser-included merger where appropriate, and flag the aggravating facts that elevate the grade.

Crimes Against the Person: Elements and Intent