Chapter Four: Crimes Against the Person, Sexual Offenses, and Property Crimes

Criminal assault and battery overlap with tort concepts, but they are not always identical. In Criminal Law, battery is often defined as the unlawful application of force to another resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. The force may be direct or indirect. A punch, shove, slap, or striking someone with an object may qualify. Some statutes require bodily injury; others include offensive or insulting contact.

Assault can mean different things depending on the jurisdiction. In one common formulation, assault is an attempted battery. Under that approach, the defendant commits assault by trying but failing to inflict unlawful force. If Dana swings a fist at Riley and misses, Dana may be guilty of assault.

In another formulation, assault means intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Under that approach, if Dana points a gun at Riley and Riley reasonably believes Dana is about to shoot, assault may occur even if Dana never fires.

Students must be alert because “assault” is one of those words that changes meaning across common law, modern statutes, and tort comparisons. On an exam, the first task is to identify the definition supplied or assumed.

Many jurisdictions distinguish simple assault or battery from aggravated forms. Aggravation usually depends on greater danger, greater injury, a more culpable purpose, or a protected victim.

Aggravated assault or battery may involve use of a deadly weapon. A knife, gun, metal pipe, vehicle, or other object capable of causing death or serious bodily injury may elevate the offense. The object need not be inherently deadly if used in a dangerous manner.

Aggravation may also depend on serious bodily injury. A shove causing no injury may be simple battery. A beating causing broken bones, permanent impairment, or grave bodily harm may be aggravated battery.

Some statutes elevate assault when committed with intent to commit another felony, such as robbery, rape, or murder. Others provide enhanced offenses when the victim is a police officer, firefighter, medical worker, child, elderly person, or other protected person.

Mayhem historically involved maliciously disabling, dismembering, or disfiguring another person. The classic idea was injury that reduced the victim’s ability to fight or defend. Modern statutes often treat similar conduct as aggravated battery, maiming, or serious bodily injury offenses.

Kidnapping traditionally involved unlawful confinement or movement of a person, often by force, threat, or fraud. Modern statutes vary widely. Some require asportation, meaning movement. Others include substantial confinement even without major movement.

The core interest protected is personal liberty. Kidnapping punishes the serious interference with a person’s freedom through unlawful restraint or movement.

Kidnapping issues often arise during other crimes. A robber may force a store clerk from the front counter to a back room. A sexual assault may involve movement from one location to another. A carjacker may drive away with a passenger inside. The question becomes whether the movement or confinement is enough for a separate kidnapping charge.

Some jurisdictions require movement or confinement beyond what is merely incidental to another offense. This limitation prevents every robbery, rape, or assault involving brief movement from automatically becoming kidnapping. Courts may consider distance, duration, increased danger, isolation of the victim, reduced likelihood of detection, and whether the movement substantially increased the seriousness of the crime.

Sexual offenses must be handled carefully and doctrinally. Common-law rape traditionally required sexual intercourse by force and without consent. Modern statutes vary significantly and often define sexual assault more broadly. They may include different forms of penetration or sexual contact, coercion, incapacity, age, threats, abuse of authority, or lack of consent.

The common-law definition is important historically, but modern law often departs from it. Many statutes reject narrow force requirements, define consent affirmatively, recognize incapacity due to intoxication or unconsciousness, and include gender-neutral language. Some statutes distinguish degrees of sexual assault based on force, injury, weapon use, age, relationship, or authority.

Consent is central in many sexual-offense statutes. Lack of consent may be shown by force, threats, coercion, incapacity, unconsciousness, deception about the nature of the act in limited circumstances, or statutory incapacity based on age. Modern exams may provide a statute, and the student must follow its exact language.

Force is also jurisdiction-sensitive. Some statutes require physical force beyond the act itself. Others treat nonconsensual penetration as sufficient. Threats may substitute for force when they overcome free will or create fear of serious harm. Authority relationships, such as teacher-student or guard-inmate, may also matter.

Statutory rape generally involves sexual conduct with a person below a legally specified age of consent. The central feature is that the law treats the minor as legally incapable of consenting.

Many jurisdictions treat the victim’s age as a strict-liability element or sharply limit mistake-of-age defenses. Under that approach, a defendant may be guilty even if the defendant reasonably believed the victim was old enough. Other modern statutes allow mistake-of-age defenses in limited circumstances, often depending on the age difference, the defendant’s age, or whether the mistake was reasonable.

Because statutes vary, students must use the jurisdictional rule supplied. The exam may say that mistake of age is no defense. It may say reasonable mistake is a defense. It may create different grades based on the victim’s age and defendant’s age. The student’s task is not to impose a preferred policy but to apply the statute.

Property crimes are among the most element-driven topics in Criminal Law. At common law, the classification depended on highly specific distinctions: possession versus title, force versus fraud, taking from the person versus taking from property, intent at the time of taking versus later intent, and lawful possession versus trespassory possession.

Modern statutes often consolidate theft offenses. A modern code may define “theft” broadly to include larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and related offenses. But common-law distinctions remain heavily tested because they teach careful legal reasoning.

The major property crimes are larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, robbery, extortion, burglary, arson, receiving stolen property, forgery, and uttering.

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Every word matters.

“Trespassory” means without consent or beyond the scope of consent. If the owner did not consent to the taking, the taking is trespassory. If the owner consented only for a limited purpose and the defendant exceeded that consent, the taking may still be trespassory.

“Taking” means obtaining possession. The defendant must gain control over the property.

“Carrying away,” also called asportation, can be slight. Moving the property even a short distance may satisfy this element.

The property must be personal property of another. Traditional larceny applied to tangible personal property, though modern statutes may expand coverage.

The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner at the time of taking. This timing is crucial. If the defendant borrows property intending to return it and only later decides to keep it, common-law larceny may be difficult unless a continuing trespass theory applies.

Embezzlement occurs when a person lawfully possesses property and fraudulently converts it to personal use.

The key distinction from larceny is lawful possession at the beginning. In larceny, the defendant wrongfully obtains possession. In embezzlement, the defendant initially has lawful possession or entrustment, then misappropriates the property.

Employees, agents, trustees, bailees, and others entrusted with property may commit embezzlement if they convert it fraudulently. A cashier entrusted merely with custody of money may present a more difficult classification, while a manager with authority over accounts may more clearly have possession. Common-law distinctions between custody and possession can be technical.

Conversion means using or dealing with the property in a way seriously inconsistent with the owner’s rights. It may include spending entrusted funds, transferring property to oneself, selling entrusted goods, or using property for unauthorized personal purposes.

False pretenses involves obtaining title to property by knowingly making a false representation of material fact with intent to defraud, where the victim relies on the misrepresentation.

The key distinction is title. If the victim intends to transfer ownership because of the defendant’s fraud, false pretenses may apply.

For example, Dana tells Seller, “I already wired the purchase price for your car,” knowing that statement is false. Relying on the lie, Seller signs over the title and gives Dana the car. Dana may have committed false pretenses because Dana obtained title through fraud.

The false representation must generally concern a past or present fact. A false promise about future conduct may be harder unless the defendant had no intention of performing at the time the promise was made. The prosecution must show intent to defraud and reliance by the victim.

Larceny by trick involves obtaining possession, but not title, through fraud. The victim is deceived into giving the defendant temporary possession, while ownership remains with the victim.

Suppose Dana tells Owner, “Let me borrow your laptop for an hour to give a presentation,” but Dana actually intends to sell it. Owner gives Dana the laptop temporarily. Dana has obtained possession by fraud, but Owner did not intend to transfer title. This is larceny by trick.

The distinction between larceny by trick and false pretenses turns on what the victim intended to transfer. Possession points toward larceny by trick. Title points toward false pretenses.

Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of another by force or threat of immediate force. It is essentially aggravated larceny involving confrontation and danger to the person.

Robbery contains the elements of larceny plus two additional features: the property is taken from the person or presence of another, and the taking is accomplished by force or threat of immediate force.

“From the person” includes property physically on the victim, such as a wallet in a pocket or purse in hand. “Presence” is broader. Property is within the victim’s presence if it is within the victim’s control or protection, even if not physically attached. Money in a cash register in front of a clerk may be within the clerk’s presence.

Force may be slight if sufficient to overcome resistance. Threats must involve immediate force. Pointing a knife and demanding a wallet is robbery. Snatching property can be tricky. If the force is only the force needed to take the property, some jurisdictions may treat it as larceny; if the defendant uses force against the person or creates confrontation, robbery is stronger.

Extortion, sometimes called blackmail, involves obtaining property by threat. Unlike robbery, the threat need not be immediate physical force. Extortion often involves threats of future harm, exposure, accusation, economic injury, or misuse of power.

For example, “Pay me $10,000 or I will reveal your secret,” may be extortion if the elements are satisfied. So may threats to accuse someone of a crime, damage business interests, or misuse official authority.

The distinction from robbery is timing and type of threat. Robbery involves immediate force or threat of immediate force. Extortion often involves future harm or coercive pressure not requiring face-to-face immediate danger.

At common law, burglary is breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony inside.

Again, each element matters.

“Breaking” can be actual or constructive. Actual breaking may include opening a closed door or window, even if unlocked. Constructive breaking may involve entry obtained by fraud, threat, or intimidation.

“Entering” requires some part of the body or instrument used to commit the felony to enter the structure.

The structure must be a dwelling of another. Common-law burglary focused on habitation, not all buildings.

The offense must occur at night.

The defendant must have intent to commit a felony inside at the time of breaking and entering. If the defendant enters innocently and only later decides to steal, common-law burglary may fail.

Modern burglary statutes often expand beyond common law. They may cover commercial buildings, vehicles, tents, or structures; eliminate the nighttime requirement; include remaining unlawfully; and require intent to commit any crime rather than only a felony.

At common law, arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

“Malicious” generally means intentional or reckless burning. It does not necessarily require hatred or spite.

“Burning” traditionally required damage by fire to the structure itself. Mere smoke discoloration or scorching might not be enough under strict common-law doctrine, though modern statutes may vary.

The property had to be the dwelling of another. Common-law arson, like burglary, focused on habitation and danger to human security.

Modern arson statutes are broader. They may cover many types of structures, vehicles, personal property, forests, or one’s own property if burned for fraud or under circumstances endangering others. Burning one’s own insured building to collect insurance may be arson under modern law.

Receiving stolen property involves receiving, possessing, or controlling property known to be stolen, with intent to permanently deprive the owner or aid in deprivation, depending on the statute.

The property must actually be stolen at the time of receipt under traditional doctrine. If police recover stolen goods and then use them in a sting, the goods may no longer be legally “stolen” under some common-law approaches, though modern statutes may address this problem.

The defendant must know or believe the property is stolen, depending on the statute. Knowledge may be proven by suspicious circumstances, such as an impossibly low price, secretive sale, altered serial numbers, or statements by the seller.

Receiving stolen property targets the market for stolen goods. Theft becomes more profitable when others knowingly buy or distribute stolen property.

Forgery involves falsely making or altering a writing with apparent legal significance, with intent to defraud. The writing must appear to have legal effect, such as a check, deed, contract, will, prescription, identification document, or official record.

The falsity concerns authenticity, not merely truth. Writing a bad check on one’s own account may be a different offense, but signing another person’s name without authority may be forgery.

Uttering involves offering a forged instrument as genuine. A person who passes a forged check at a bank commits uttering if the person knows it is forged and intends to defraud.

Forgery and uttering often appear together. One person may create the false instrument; another may present it. Both may be criminally liable under the appropriate offense.

Consider four examples.

First, a cashier takes money from the register after being entrusted to handle it. If the cashier had lawful possession of the funds and then fraudulently converted them, embezzlement is likely. If the cashier had only custody and took from the employer’s possession, larceny may be argued under common-law distinctions.

Second, a shoplifter grabs a coat and runs from a store intending to keep it. That is larceny: trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive.

Third, a person tricks a seller into transferring ownership of a car by falsely claiming payment has been made. If the seller transfers title because of the lie, the offense is false pretenses.

Fourth, a person points a knife at a victim and takes a wallet from the victim’s hand. That is robbery because it is larceny from the person by threat of immediate force.

These comparisons show why property crimes are tested. The facts may look similar, but the legal classifications differ.

Criminal Law includes crimes against the person, sexual offenses, and property crimes, each with precise elements.

Battery is the unlawful application of force resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. Assault may mean attempted battery or intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Aggravated assault or battery may involve deadly weapons, serious injury, special intent, or protected victims. Mayhem historically involved malicious disabling or disfigurement. Kidnapping involves unlawful confinement or movement, with modern limits when movement is incidental to another crime.

Common-law rape traditionally required intercourse by force and without consent, but modern sexual-offense statutes vary widely. They may focus on consent, coercion, incapacity, age, threats, authority, and different forms of sexual conduct. Statutory rape involves sexual conduct with a person below the age of consent; mistake-of-age rules vary.

Property crimes require exact element matching. Larceny is trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive. Embezzlement involves lawful possession followed by fraudulent conversion. False pretenses involves obtaining title by fraud. Larceny by trick involves obtaining possession by fraud. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence by force or threat of immediate force. Extortion involves obtaining property through threats, often of future harm.

Burglary at common law is breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony inside. Arson is malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Modern statutes often expand both offenses. Receiving stolen property requires receiving or controlling property known to be stolen. Forgery involves falsely making or altering a legally significant writing with intent to defraud; uttering is offering a forged instrument as genuine.

The key lesson is precision. Criminal Law does not ask generally whether the defendant behaved badly. It asks whether the prosecution can prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.