Nelson v. Carroll
735 A.2d 1096 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
Facts
Carroll, while "tipsy" and angry, confronted Nelson in a nightclub over a debt. Carroll produced a handgun, struck Nelson on the head with it, and the gun discharged, shooting Nelson, as Carroll went to strike him again. Nelson suffered severe injuries, and Carroll later pleaded guilty to assault and illegal possession of a handgun.
Procedural history
This case was before the court for the second time. In an earlier decision, the court addressed the Court of Special Appeals’ conclusion that Nelson had failed to preserve his motion for judgment, reversing that decision and holding Nelson had properly raised his reasons. The current decision reverses the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remands the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issue
Can a claim that a gunshot was an "accident" provide a defense to a civil battery action when the defendant intentionally threatened and struck the plaintiff with the handgun, and the gun discharged during a subsequent attempted strike?
Holding
No, a claim of "accident" does not provide a defense to battery under these circumstances. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, finding that the intent for battery was present as a matter of law.
Rule
The intent element for battery does not require a specific intent to cause the particular harm that occurred, but rather a general intent to invade another's legally protected physical well-being through harmful or offensive contact or apprehension of such contact. When an assault occurs, and a harmful contact results, the intent for the assault can satisfy the intent element for battery, even if the specific harm was "accidental."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.