DOCSLIB.ORG

Enhanced Penalties for Assault and Battery of a Child Updated August 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enhanced Penalties for Assault and Battery of a Child Updated August 2009 Enhanced Penalties for Assault and Battery of a Child Updated August 2009 Table of Contents: ALABAMA.................................................................................................................................................... 6 ALA. CODE § 13A-6-130 (2009). Domestic violence in the first degree.................................................... 6 ALA. CODE § 13A-6-131 (2009). Domestic violence in the second degree............................................... 7 ALA. CODE § 13A-6-132 (2009). Domestic violence in the third degree .................................................. 7 ALA. CODE § 26-15-3 (2009). Penalties..................................................................................................... 7 ALA. CODE § 26-15-3.1 (2009). Aggravated child abuse .......................................................................... 8 ALASKA........................................................................................................................................................ 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.220 (2009). Assault in the third degree ................................................................ 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.280 (2009). Assault of an unborn child in the first degree................................. 10 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.282 (2009). Assault of an unborn child in the second degree ............................ 10 ALASKA STAT. § 12.55.155 (2009). Factors in aggravation and mitigation............................................. 10 ALASKA STAT. § 12.55.125 (2009). Sentences of imprisonment for felonies.......................................... 17 ARIZONA.................................................................................................................................................... 24 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 8-201 (2008). Definitions......................................................................................... 24 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-705 (2008). Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions.............. 28 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-1204 (2008). Aggravated assault; classification; definition................................ 33 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-3623 (2008). Child or vulnerable adult abuse; emotional abuse; classification; exceptions; definitions............................................................................................................................. 36 ARKANSAS ................................................................................................................................................ 38 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-13-201 (2009). Battery in the first degree............................................................. 38 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-13-202 (2009). Battery in the second degree ........................................................ 39 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-205 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a minor in the first degree ................ 41 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-206 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree ........... 41 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-207 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a minor in the third degree............... 42 ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-221 (2009). Permitting abuse of a minor ......................................................... 42 CALIFORNIA.............................................................................................................................................. 43 CAL. PENAL CODE § 273a (2009). Endangering child or causing or permitting child to suffer physical pain, mental suffering, or injury; Conditions of probation ......................................................................43 CAL. PENAL CODE § 273ab (2009). Assault resulting in death of child under eight years of age............ 44 CAL. PENAL CODE § 273d (2009). Infliction of corporal punishment or injury on child resulting in traumatic condition; Conditions of probation .......................................................................................... 44 COLORADO................................................................................................................................................ 45 COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-1.3-401 (2008). Felonies classified - presumptive penalties.............................. 45 COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-1.3-406 (2008). Mandatory sentences for violent crimes .................................. 56 COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-6-401 (2008). Child abuse ................................................................................. 58 CONNECTICUT.......................................................................................................................................... 62 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53a-59 (2008). Assault in the first degree: Class B felony: Nonsuspendable sentences.................................................................................................................................................. 62 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53-20 (2008). Cruelty to persons............................................................................ 63 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53-21 (2008). Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children.................................................................................................................................................... 63 DELAWARE................................................................................................................................................ 64 DEL. CODE ANN. 11, § 612 (2009).Assault in the second degree; class D felony ................................... 64 DEL. CODE ANN. 11, § 615 (2009). Assault by abuse or neglect; class B................................................ 65 DEL. CODE ANN. 11, § 1102 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a child; class E or G felony ............... 66 DEL. CODE ANN. 11 § 4205 (2009). Sentence for felonies ...................................................................... 67 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA........................................................................................................................ 69 D.C. CODE § 22-1101 (2009). Definition and penalty [Formerly § 22-901]............................................ 69 D.C. CODE § 22-3611 (2009). Enhanced penalty for committing crime of violence against minors....... 70 FLORIDA..................................................................................................................................................... 70 National District Attorneys Association National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse 1 FLA. STAT. § 784.045 (2009). Aggravated battery................................................................................... 70 FLA. STAT. § 784.085 (2009). Battery of child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling certain fluids or materials .................................................................................................................................... 71 FLA. STAT. § 827.03 (2009). Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties ....................... 71 GEORGIA.................................................................................................................................................... 72 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-21 (2009). Aggravated assault ........................................................................... 72 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-23.1 (2009). Battery........................................................................................... 74 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-24 (2009). Aggravated battery ........................................................................... 76 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-28 (2009). Assault on an unborn child............................................................... 77 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-29 (2009). Battery of an unborn child................................................................ 77 GA. CODE ANN. § 16-5-70 (2009). Cruelty to children............................................................................ 78 HAWAII....................................................................................................................................................... 79 HAW. REV. STAT. § 709-903.5 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a minor in the first degree.............. 79 HAW. REV. STAT. § 709-904 (2009). Endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree ............ 79 HAW. REV. STAT. § 709-906 (2009). Abuse of family or household members; penalty.......................... 80 IDAHO......................................................................................................................................................... 83 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-907 (2009). Aggravated battery defined ........................................................... 83 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-908 (2009). Aggravated battery -- Punishment................................................. 83 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-909 (2009). Assault with intent to commit a serious felony defined ................ 84 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-910 (2009). Assault with the intent to commit a serious felony -- Punishment 84 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-911 (2009). Battery with the intent to commit a serious felony defined........... 84 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-912 (2009). Battery with the intent to commit a serious felony -- Punishment 84 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-1501 (2009). Injury to children......................................................................... 84 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-1508A (2009). Sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age -- Penalty ................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • What's Reasonable?: Self-Defense and Mistake in Criminal and Tort
    Do Not Delete 12/15/2010 10:20 PM WHAT’S REASONABLE?: SELF-DEFENSE AND MISTAKE IN CRIMINAL AND TORT LAW by Caroline Forell∗ In this Article, Professor Forell examines the criminal and tort mistake- as-to-self-defense doctrines. She uses the State v. Peairs criminal and Hattori v. Peairs tort mistaken self-defense cases to illustrate why application of the reasonable person standard to the same set of facts in two areas of law can lead to different outcomes. She also uses these cases to highlight how fundamentally different the perception of what is reasonable can be in different cultures. She then questions whether both criminal and tort law should continue to treat a reasonably mistaken belief that deadly force is necessary as justifiable self-defense. Based on the different purposes that tort and criminal law serve, Professor Forell explains why in self-defense cases criminal law should retain the reasonable mistake standard while tort law should move to a strict liability with comparative fault standard. I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1402 II. THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE ................................................... 1403 III. THE PEAIRS MISTAKE CASES .................................................. 1406 A. The Peairs Facts ..................................................................... 1408 B. The Criminal Case .................................................................. 1409 1. The Applicable Law ........................................................... 1409
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 1297) It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization
    U. S. Department of Justice I Bureau of Justice Statistics I Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization by Herbert Koppel people's perception of the meaning of BJS Analyst March 1987 annual rates with respect to their own The Bureau of Justice Statistics lives. If the Earth revolved around the This report provides estimates of the National Crime Survey provides sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime likelihood that a person will become a annual victimization rates based rates would be halved, but we would not victim of crime during his or her life- on counts of the number of crimes be safer. time, or that a household will be vic- reported and not reported to timized during a 20-year period. This police in the United States. These Calculating lifetime victimization rates contrasts with the conventional use of a rates are based on interviews 1-year period in measuring crime and twice a year with about 101,000 For this report, lifetime likelihoods criminal victimization. Most promi- persons in approximately 49,000 of victimization were calculated from nently, the National Crime Survey nationally representative NCS annual victimization rates and life (NCS) surveys a sample of U.S. house- households. Those annual rates, tables published by the National Center holds and publishes annual victimization while of obvious utility to for Health statistics.% The probability rates, and the FBI's Uniform Crime policymakers, researchers, and that a person will be victimized at a Reports (UCR) provide annual rates of statisticians, do not convey to particular age basically depends upon crimes reported to the police.
    [Show full text]
  • Have You Been the Victim of Assault, Robbery, Harassment Or Some Other School-Related Crime?
    Have you been the victim of assault, robbery, harassment or some other school-related crime? If you have, are you: Housed at the UFT and staffed by your colleagues who ➤ Feeling vulnerable, anxious, fearful, angry or understand your school environment and both the pressures depressed? and satisfactions of your job, the Victim Support Program is the only one of its kind in the country. Services include: ➤Confused about procedures and forms? ✓ Individual and group counseling conducted by Frustrated by the paperwork involved in securing your ➤ licensed psychologists, specially trained and medical benefits, claiming line-of-duty injury, or dealing with law enforcement or other agencies? experienced in working with people who are suffering trauma. ➤ Apprehensive about returning to work? ✓ Help with forms and procedures. Call the Victim Support Program. Assistance in dealing with the police department and The Victim Support Program was established in 1989 by ✓ the United Federation of Teachers and the New York City other criminal justice agencies. Board of Education to provide comprehensive, practical ✓ Support as we accompany you to court or the Board’s assistance and psychological support to teachers and other Medical Bureau. school personnel following crimes and violent incidents in Visits to schools following violent incidents to deal school. ✓ with “ripple effect” trauma. Our goal is to help you cope with the aftermath of a criminal incident. We will support you as you strive for recovery after what we know is often a professionally and personally traumatic event. Call us. We can help! (212) 598-6853 Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.- 6 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Incident Entry (IIE)
    Individual Incident Entry (IIE) To begin entering a Group A or Group B incident into the state repository, click the “Incident / Arrest” button. Choose Incident or Arrest Click the “Incident Report” button to begin entering Group A incidents or click “Arrest Report” to begin enter Group B incidents into the repository. If you choose Group A, Incident …. Start with selecting either New Case or Get Previous Case Group A, New Case …. 1 2 After clicking on “New Case”: 1) enter the incident number in the box and 2) click “OK” – these steps are mandatory. Group A, Previous Case …. 1 2 After clicking “Get Previous Case”: 1) enter the incident number or partial number in the box and 2) click “Search”. Either one incident or a list of incidents with the partial number will display. Click the “Select” button to choose the appropriate case. Incident data elements …. Optional: Use only if incident date is Mandatory (if known): unknown Date incident occurred (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) Mandatory: Use military 24-hour time; if incident occurs exactly at If an incident needs to be midnight, consider it to have removed from the repository, occurred at the beginning of the “delete” it here. following day. Optional: Physical address or Mandatory: Answer “no” or “yes” only for the latitude/longitude contribute to the offenses of: repository crime mapping feature. All Other Larceny Bribery Burglary/Breaking & Entering Credit Card/ATM Fraud Embezzlement Extortion/Blackmail False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game (Fraud) Impersonation (Fraud) Motor Vehicle Theft Theft From A Building Theft from a Motor Vehicle Robbery Wire Fraud Victim data elements ….
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime and Punishment Affray
    (crime) CRIME AND PUNISHMENT Affr ay Armed – riding and going Arson and maiming Barretr y (causing unnecessary legal actions) Burglary Forcible Detainer Felonies: buggery, abduction, tongue or eyes, stealing records, multiplication of gold or silver, unlawful hunting, bigamy Forcible entry Larceny Murder and homicide Offences by officer s Rape and attempted rape Riot Robbery Suicide Theft Treason Witchcraf t AFFRAY Hale gave the following definition of affray: 'if weapons drawn, or stroke given or offered, but words no affray: menace to kill or beat, no affr ay, but yet for safeguard of peace, constable may bring them before Justice'. It would thus appear that in order to commit an affray a weapon must be drawn, or a stroke given or offered. In the event of an affray, if it wer e considerable, a private person might stop the affray and deliver them to the constable. If a person hurt another dangerously, a private person might arrest the offender , and bring him to gaol or to the next Justice. A constable or Jus tice must suppress all affrays . Affr ays were misdemeanours, not punishable by death. Where were they pros ecuted and how punished? KING S BENCH AND ASS IZES A first glance through the KB and ASS I material(to be checked with the machine) does not reveal any cases of simple affr ay being prosecuted. This would not be surprising, since the offence was not of a suf ficiently serious nature in itself to come to these courts. The one exception I have found occurred in the Assizes for 1603 when three EC yeomen were indicted for assaulting a man at Bures.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Crimes of Obsession: Harassment, Menacing, Stalking and Contempt by Tim Franczyk, Esq. Title Page Introduction
    Table of Contents Crimes of Obsession: Harassment, Menacing, Stalking and Contempt By Tim Franczyk, Esq. Title Page Introduction 2 Categories of Stalkers 2 Legal Response 3 Degrees of Offensive Conduct 3 Relevant Statutes 3 Harassment 2nd Degree 3 Harassment 1st Degree 4 Menacing 3rd Degree 5 Menacing 2nd Degree 6 Menacing 1st Degree 7 Stalking Offenses 7 Stalking 4th Degree 7 Stalking 3rd Degree 8 Stalking 2nd Degree 8 Some Cases 9 Stalking 1st Degree 11 Criminal Contempt Offenses 11 Criminal Contempt 2nd Degree 12 Criminal Contempt 1st Degree 12 Some Cases 13 Aggravated Criminal Contempt 14 Dial M for Mayhem 14 Aggravated Harassment 2nd Degree 14 Aggravated Harassment 1st Degree 16 Final Thought 17 1 | P a g e CRIMES OF OBSESSION: HARASSMENT, MENACING, STALKING AND CONTEMPT Thomas P. Franczyk Deputy for Legal Education Assigned Counsel Program July 2nd, 2021 INTRODUCTION: In 1983, Gordon Sumner (better known as Sting) wrote one of his biggest hits which, for all intents and purposes, was an ode to obsession. In the opening verse, he writes: “Every breath you take. Every move you make. Every bond you break, every step you take, I’ll be watching you. Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay, I’ll be watching you.” The chorus, which screams of unbridled possessiveness, asks: “Oh can’t you see, you belong to me. How my poor hear aches with every step you take. And every move you make, every vow you break, every side you take, every claim you stake, I’ll be watching you.” The character in the song (which Sumner reportedly wrote after the break-up with his first wife), would arguably fit right into the category of “rejected stalker.” This is a character described by psychologist/ New York University professor Robert T.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORTED in the COURT of SPECIAL APPEALS of MARYLAND No. 485 September Term, 2012 BRENDEN DASHIELL V. STATE of MARYLAND Krauser
    REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 485 September Term, 2012 BRENDEN DASHIELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Krauser, C.J., Graeff, Berger, JJ. Opinion by Krauser, C.J. Filed: November 4, 2013 Convicted, by a jury, sitting in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, of involuntary manslaughter, Brenden Dashiell, appellant, noted this appeal, raising three issues. Re-ordered to facilitate review, they are: I. Whether the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that self-defense is not a defense to affray; II. Whether the circuit court erred in allowing the jury to consider affray as an unlawful underlying act for involuntary manslaughter because the State failed to show that the fight occurred in public or caused terror to the people; and III. Whether the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that defense of property may be a defense to assault and affray. Because the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that self-defense is not a defense to affray, we reverse and remand. We shall, however, briefly address the two remaining issues, as they are likely to arise again if there is a retrial of this case. Background On Saturday, July 2, 2011, Justin Carter and his wife, Evelyn Carter, held a cookout on the back porch of their home in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to kick off the July 4th weekend. Among the guests were Susie Palencia, Mrs. Carter’s sister. Ms. Palencia and appellant were, at that time, a couple and together the parents of two daughters. Sometime that evening, appellant called the Carters’ home, looking for Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2014
    State Statutes: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2014 National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1011 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Toll Free: (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 Direct: (703) 312-7922 Fax: (703) 312-7966 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fullfaithandcredit.org State statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. If you have a correction or update, please contact us at (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 or via email at [email protected]. This project is supported by Grant No. 2011-TA-AX-K080 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Compiled by the National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE: For your convenience, hyperlinks are located on each state name in this Table of Contents. For faster access, please select the name of the state you would like to view ALABAMA .................................................................................... 3 MONTANA ................................................................................. 24 ALASKA ....................................................................................... 3 NEBRASKA ................................................................................
    [Show full text]