Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

July 3, 2015

Suspected Arsonists Sought

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Illinois state police are investigating a series of six fires that occurred last January that they believe were intentionally caused by two suspected arsonists. The fires involved a historic school house, a house whose occupants managed to run out of the house before it was engulfed, and sheds adjacent to main buildings, all along the same street in Marissa, IL.

Arson in Illinois

Under Illinois law, arson is a Class 2 felony that carries a potential three to seven-year prison sentence. It is the willful act of destroying someone else’s property valued at $150 or more by setting it on fire without permission from the owner. Even if you partly own the property, it is still considered arson if you don’t have a co-owner’s permission permission to set it on fire.

If the property is someone’s residence or is a place of worship, the act of arson becomes a Class 1 felony which is punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Finally, arson can be counted an aggravated act and is classified as a Class X felony if the perpetrator knows that one or more persons are inside the building, or where someone suffers great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement, or where a fireman or policeman on duty at the scene is injured.

A charge of arson may also be coupled with a charge of possession of explosives or explosive/incendiary devices. According to Illinois statutes, a person commits criminal possession of explosives or incendiary devices if he or she possesses, manufactures, or transports such devices and either intends to use the device to commit any offense. This is also classified as a Class 1 felony and comes with a sentence of four to 30 years in prison.

Expert Testimony in Arson Cases

Often, an arson case will hang on expert testimony from various fire investigators. However, over the years, problems have been identified with the reliability of expert testimony from fire investigators. Unlike other forensic sciences, fire investigations often involve the collection of burn patterns and debris alongside reports by the police, fire fighters, other fire investigators, and medical professionals. They often conduct interviews with eyewitnesses, victims, and the defendant who may disclose potential motives for arson such as vandalism or financial woes. This extra factual information about the offender and events surrounding the fire can be subjective and incorporate the investigator’s thinking on the events or motives of the fire, rather than the plain forensic evidence. This is often undisclosed to juries, and they are left to treat fire investigators’ testimonies as scientific even if they incorporated subjective and non-scientific information into their conclusions. Additionally, the fire investigator may be unknowingly influenced by all of this extra information and may impact his or her opinions and testimony. It may lead the investigator to rule out natural or accidental causes because of the bias that he or she unknowingly develops.

Additionally, there are a lot of differences in procedures and training between state, region, county, police and fire departments and fire investigators. There is no consistent standard across courts and jurisdictions for fire experts to be certified investigators. Much of the fire investigation field’s knowledge base is based out of individual and anecdotal experience about fires, and there is no formal training or specialization required to conduct fire investigations.

June 30, 2015

Murder Conviction Reinstated by Illinois Supreme Court

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court of appeals and reinstated the first-degree murder conviction and 70-year sentence of Mark Downs, who shot and killed a 6-year-old boy, Nico Contreras, in his sleep. The convicted murderer fired a gun into a bedroom window at the Aurora home of the victim’s grandparents on July 10, 1996. During the trial. the court instructed the jury that it was their duty to define reasonable doubt in the case, which an appeals court ruled was incorrect and caused the conviction and sentence to be reversed. However, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the instruction given by the judge was correct and that the jury convicted Downs with a proper understanding of reasonable doubt.

No Jury Instruction for Reasonable Doubt in Illinois

In this case, the jury sent a note to the court asking whether its definition of reasonable doubt was 80 percent, 70 percent, or 60 percent. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the U.S. Constitution does not require or prohibit a definition of reasonable doubt, and in Illinois, trial courts (and attorneys for the prosecution or the defense) are not allowed to provide jury instructions that define reasonable doubt. This is because “reasonable doubt” is difficult to define, and trial judges usually end up substituting other phrases that are equally difficult to understand. Therefore, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled in the past that “reasonable doubt’ should speak for itself without any attempt at a definition from the trial court.

When Downs appealed his conviction and sentence, he argued that the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it was their duty to define reasonable doubt in this case was erroneous because it violated the prohibition on instructions about reasonable doubt. According to the appellate court, the only acceptable answer would have been to tell the jury that reasonable doubt is not defined as a percentage, and to just inform them that reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in law, and that they had received all of the instructions needed to answer its question. However, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, saying that in decisions going back a hundred years, it has consistently held that the term “reasonable doubt” doesn’t need to be defined because the words themselves are enough to convey its meaning.

First-degree murder

The shooting occurred during a period in the 1990s when Aurora experienced a long period of street gang violence. It was at this time that Downs and an accomplice, Elias Diaz, reportedly targeted Nico’s uncle for belonging to a rival gang. Elias Diaz allegedly planned the shooting and drove the getaway card. He was convicted and received a 60-year term.

Here, Elias Diaz did not actually carry out the killing. However, there was testimony during the trial that he drove two men to Nico’s house and ordered Downs to shoot a man whom he believed was a rival gang member. Diaz thought that the rival gang member at one time occupied the bedroom in which Nico slept and ordered the shooting to occur there.

In Illinois, first degree murder is defined as performing an act that causes someone to die with the intent to kill that individual or someone else, and with the knowledge that the act will probably cause death or great bodily harm to that individual or someone else. For first-degree murder, it is not necessary that you are the one to actually carry out the act of killing. Ordering someone to commit the act is enough to satisfy the definition.

Additionally, a person will still be guilty of first-degree murder even if the person who dies was not the intended target of the intent to kill. Here, the actual target was Nico’s uncle, and not Nico. However, the Illinois statute explicitly allows the intent to be transferred, and that even if someone else was killed other than the intended victim, it would still be considered first-degree murder.

June 26, 2015

Firearms, Clothing Provide Possible Link to Chicago Home Invasion

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Police investigating a Chicago home invasion have recovered firearms and clothing that may further link the suspects, who are already in custody, to the crime. But even if police can prove that the items belonged to the suspects, that fact alone doesn’t prove that the suspects committed the crime.

Eyewitness Testimony

The suspects were arrested based on eyewitness descriptions of the clothing they were wearing during the crime. Police found some articles of clothing and firearms discarded in fields near the location of the home invasion.

But eyewitness identifications are often faulty. According to the Innocence Project, in cases where innocence was proven through subsequent DNA testing, 70% of faulty convictions were the direct result of eyewitness misidentification.

Here, the eyewitness descriptions were based almost entirely on the victim’s clothing. Using clothing as the primary means of identification is inherently unreliable. If the clothing was not distinctive, or if the suspects were wearing a style of clothing popular with young people, an arrest based solely on the clothing description creates a possibility that the police arrested the wrong person. Add to that the inherent untrustworthiness of eyewitness identification generally – eyewitness testimony can be influence by police conduct, statements of other witnesses, news stories on the crime or the passage of time – and it makes the arrests in this case open to casting reasonable doubt that the defendants were the ones who committed the crime.

Proof of Ownership vs. Proof of Use

Proving that the suspects owned the clothing and firearms is not, in and of itself, proof that they committed the crimes.

The police can prove ownership of the guns by tracing serial numbers or matching fingerprints found on the weapons to the suspect’s fingerprints. Proving that the clothing belongs to the suspects may be a bit harder, but forensic experts can likely find hair or skin samples that would link the clothing to the suspects. It may also be easy to find images on Facebook or other social media sites that show the suspects wearing the clothing.

To prove that the suspects committed the crime, the prosecution must obtain forensic evidence that shows the suspects used the items during the commission of the crime. A jury would expect that the owner’s fingerprints would be on the weapon, so that alone does not prove that the suspect was the one who fired the weapon during the home invasion. The weapon could have been stolen, or the suspect could have lent it to a friend or family member who then used it during the crime. The prosecution must have other proof, such as gunpowder residue found on the suspect, to prove that he fired the weapon.

The same is true of the clothing. Even if the prosecution can prove that the suspects owned the specific items of clothing police uncovered, they must prove that they were the ones who actually wore it during the crime, rather than it having been stolen or borrowed by somebody else.

So the defense strategy in this specific case would rely heavily on disputing the prosecution’s forensic evidence linking the items recovered to the suspect’s use and possession during the commission of the crime. An independent forensic expert would examine all of the prosecution’s evidence to determine if the firearms and clothing could have been used by anybody other than the suspects.

June 25, 2015

Child Abuse, Mandatory Reporters and Illinois Law

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The recent revelation that Josh Duggar, oldest son of “19 Kids and Counting” stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, molested at least three of his sisters and an unrelated female when he was 14 years old has raised questions about criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse cases and who qualifies as a mandatory reporter.

Statute of Limitations for Illinois Child Sexual Abuse

With the exception of murder and several other violent crimes, every crime has a statute of limitations attached to it. The statute of limitations specifies the amount of time the prosecutor has to file charges against a suspect for his alleged involvement in the crime. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (defined as sexual contact with a minor who is a family member) is 10 years, if the victim reported the crime within three years of commission of the crime.

In certain circumstances, however, the statute of limitations is tolled. This means that the time limit does not start running until a different time as specified under law. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse doesn’t begin to run until the victim turns 18, at which point she has 20 years to press charges. So if a child is sexually assaulted when she is three years old, she has until she is 38 years old to press charges against her alleged attacker – meaning the abuser can potentially be prosecuted for his crime 35 years after it happened.

Many people have questioned why charges cannot now be filed against Josh Duggar. If the abuse had taken place in Illinois, the Duggar sisters, who are in their early 20s, would still be able to press charges, as the statute of limitations only began to run when they turned 18. However, there is a difference between whether a crime may be prosecuted from a legal standpoint, and whether it may be prosecuted from a practical one. It appears that the sisters would make very uncooperative witnesses, which would make it difficult for the prosecution to move forward with a case. This is not an uncommon occurrence in sex crimes cases; the prosecution can have sufficient evidence to corroborate the crime, but is unlikely to move forward if the victim expresses an unwillingness to cooperate.

Illinois Mandatory Reporters and Child Sexual Abuse

In a televised interview discussing the abuse, the Duggar parents said that they did not initially report the abuse to the authorities because they are not mandatory reporters. A mandatory reporter is any person required by law to report a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, and includes teachers, doctors, daycare workers and therapists. Parents are not mandatory reporters in Illinois.

However, parents have a responsibility to protect their child from harm, and while failing to report your child for sexual abuse may not lead to criminal prosecution under the mandatory reporting statute, it could lead to criminal charges of neglect or child endangerment for failing to remove either the victim or the abuser from the home in order to protect the victim from further abuse.

June 19, 2015

Palatine Man Acquitted of First-Degree Murder for Punch to Head

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Palatine man was acquitted of first-degree murder charges in early June following a jury trial. The defendant sent a fellow bar patron to the hospital following a single punch to the head; the victim died 10 days later. The defendant claimed he threw the punch in self-defense during a bar brawl.

Self-defense and First Degree Murder

The defense in this case was a two-pronged approach that involved self-defense and lack of specific intent.

First-degree murder

First-degree murder is a specific intent crime, which means that the defendant must have:

Intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to the victim;
Knew that his actions could result in death or great bodily harm, or;
Committed a forcible felony.

In this case, the victim died 10 days after being punched in the side of the head by the defendant. A forensic expert testified that the majority of the brain damage suffered by the victim was a result of the blow to the head, and not the subsequent fall to the ground. Jury verdict aside, it is difficult to see how the prosecution could successfully argue that the defendant had the specific intent required for a first-degree murder charge.

The punch occurred during the middle of a bar fight, where many participants were throwing punches and putting hands on each other. There was no indication that anybody was intent on causing deadly harm – it was just an ordinary bar fight, and the defendant jumped into the fray. His intent was to hit the victim, not to kill him or cause great bodily harm.

Nor does it seem plausible at all for the defendant to have known that his punch to the side of the victim’s head could result in death or great bodily harm. Unless the defendant was a prizefighter – and even prizefighters take heavy blows to the head on a routine basis and do not die as a result – nobody would believe that a bare-knuckled punch to the head would result in anything worse than a mild concussion. No laughing matter, but certainly not great bodily harm.

Without the victim’s subsequent death, the defendant committed battery – not aggravated battery – so the crime does not meet the criteria for first-degree murder under the forcible felony rule.

Self-defense

Under Illinois law self-defense is an affirmative defense for the use of force. The use of force must have been based on a reasonable belief that the action was “necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” The use of deadly force, or force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, is justified only to defend against similar use of force.

In this case, regardless of whether the defendant has a reasonable belief that the victim was about to assault either the defendant or his friend (which was the defendant’s justification for his use of force), the same argument against a conviction for first-degree murder applies here. There is no way the defendant could have known that a punch to the side of the head was going to result in the victim’s death. That the punch did cause the victim’s death was a freak accident.

The prosecution in this case gambled with an all-or-nothing approach and lost. Instead of allowing the jury to convict the defendant on lesser charges – manslaughter or felony battery, for instance – the only option offered was first-degree murder. Once the jury decided that the defendant did not have the requisite intent to convict on a first-degree murder charge, they had no choice but to acquit.

June 17, 2015

Chicago Man Arrested for Armed Robbery of Clothing Stores

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man was arrested for allegedly committing armed robbery at knifepoint several clothing stores in Lincoln Park and Bucktown during broad daylight.

Chicago Armed Robbery Charge

Under Illinois law a person commits armed robbery if he:

Knowingly;
Takes property;
From the person or presence of another;
By force or threat of imminent use of force.

Conviction on an armed robbery charge requires that the prosecution prove each of these four elements. If a single element cannot be proven, then the armed robbery charge must be either dismissed or reduced.

Knowingly

As discussed in previous blog entries, the “knowingly” requirement means that armed robbery is a specific intent crime. The defendant must have actually intended to forcibly take property from another person. This element isn’t usually difficult for the prosecution to prove, as it is hard to imagine a situation where a person could mistakenly take another person’s property by force. The one example that jumps to mind would be a situation where the defendant takes property from another under the mistaken belief that it was his (the defendant’s) property.

Takes property

It is unclear whether the defendant stole merchandise, cash from the store, personal belongings of shop attendants and/or customers, or a combination. But for purposes of committing armed robbery, it doesn’t matter the type or value of the item taken; there simply had to be property stolen.

The defendant was charged with robbery of multiple stores, and charges for robbery from other stores may be pending. The prosecution must prove that for each charged incident, the defendant actually took property from a person, or in their presence (more on that below). This element is the difference between a charge of armed robbery and aggravated battery or aggravated assault.

If the defendant ran out of the store without taking any property – he got spooked that the cops were coming or was chased off, for example – then he could not be charged with armed robbery. He could be charged with battery (if he made contact with anybody in the store) or assault (no contact, but put them in fear of contact), but not armed robbery, since no property would be taken. Being able to reduce even one of the armed robbery charges to aggravated assault or battery could mean the difference between several years in prison.

From the person or presence of another

Armed robbery requires that the property be taken from the person (think grabbing a purse out of a woman’s hands), or in their presence (swiping something from the counter as the cash register attendant looks on). If an item was stolen from the counter while the salesperson was in the back, then the defendant cannot be convicted of armed robbery.

By force or threat of imminent use of force

The final element of armed robbery requires that the defendant stole the item by force or by threatening the use of imminent force. Grabbing the purse out of the victim’s hands qualifies as force. Threatening the victim with a stabbing, beating, or some other use of force if he doesn’t turn over the property qualifies as a threat of force. Even if it is later shown that the defendant was bluffing – that he in fact had no weapon on him, so the threatened use of a knife or other weapon could never have been fulfilled – he can still be charged with armed robbery. Putting the victim in fear of physical harm is sufficient to meet this element.

June 12, 2015

Chicago Drug Crimes Conviction Can Lead to Deportation

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

If you are convicted of a Chicago drug crime, whether misdemeanor or felony, you face a lengthy prison sentence and hefty fines. If you are not an American citizen, whether an illegal immigrant or a lawful permanent resident, you also face the possibility of being deported.

Deportation for Drug Crimes Conviction

The United States federal code allows for the deportation of any alien convicted of conspiracy to violate, attempted violation or violation of a state controlled substance law (other than a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of personal use marijuana) that relates to a federally banned substance. The federal code outlines specific substances that are considered controlled substances that could lead to deportation.

This is an important distinction in the law. State and federal law are not always in lock-step regarding what is considered a controlled substance. If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a drug crime under state law, and the controlled substance is not included under the federal controlled substance list, the illegal immigrant is not eligible for deportation.

The United States Supreme Court recently made another distinction under the law. In order to be a deportable offense, the underlying charge must specifically state the controlled substance banned under federal law. In Mellouli v. Lynch, the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The paraphernalia in this case was a sock that contained four unnamed pills. Neither the initial charge nor the ultimate plea agreement made specific reference to the controlled substance that was in the defendant’s possession at the time of arrest.

The court ruled that in order to trigger the deportation law, it must be made clear at some point what federally banned controlled substance the defendant had in his possession. Laws must be taken at face value, meaning when the court is interpreting a vague or otherwise ambiguous law, it cannot consider what it thinks the drafters of the law meant. They may only be guided by the literal letter of the law.

Based on prior rulings, the court ruled that they must take the conviction at face value and could not be held responsible for looking into the underlying facts. Thus, police and forensic reports may have indicated what pills were in the defendant’s sock, and reading those reports would have allowed the court to check the federal controlled substance law to see if the drug was included. But that is the responsibility of the police and prosecutor, not the court. Without the substance named, the court ruled the defendant could not be deported.

In terms of defense of drug crimes, the case seemingly has little to no impact on the role of a criminal defense attorney. Yet the case is likely to make prosecutors look more closely at charging documents and plea agreements to ensure that all drug crimes cases are linked to federally banned substances, to ensure that the immigration department has an easier path to deportation, should it choose that option. In that sense, it makes it that much more important to retain the services of an experienced Chicago drug crimes attorney to help win an acquittal or dismissal of all charges, so that deportation is not an option.

June 10, 2015

Obtaining DNA in Chicago Criminal Cases

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Police were able to tie a suspect to a quadruple homicide that took place in the nation’s capital in mid-May after finding DNA on pizza crust left in the home. The suspect’s DNA was already in the criminal database as a result of past crimes.

Legal Requirements to Obtaining Chicago DNA Sample

DNA is a powerful forensic tool that can link a potential suspect to a crime. Lack of a DNA match can also be used to disprove that the suspect played any part in the crime. Blood, hair, semen, skin scrapings, saliva – all are potential sources of DNA.

If police uncover DNA evidence at a crime scene, in order to get a DNA sample to compare to the evidence, the suspect must either consent to give a sample, or the police must obtain a search warrant. If the police have other evidence to tie the suspect to the crime, such as fingerprints, video surveillance footage or the victim’s identification, getting the search warrant usually isn’t that difficult.

But in some cases, DNA is the only evidence that could place the defendant at the scene of the crime, and a police officer’s hunch is generally insufficient to persuade a judge to grant a search warrant. As the Washington, D.C., case illustrates, there are other ways police can obtain a suspect’s DNA without a search warrant. Think of the scenarios that you see played out on television crime procedurals – police officers taking a cigarette butt the suspect smokes during the interrogation, the soda pop can the suspect drank from, even removing a tissue the suspect used from the trash can – all of these may be enough to give police DNA evidence that would link the suspect to the crime. And this all is obtained without the defendant’s consent or a search warrant.

The Washington, D.C. case shows how the process may sometimes work in reverse. The police may have a DNA sample obtained from the crime scene, but no known suspect. In these cases the police run the DNA sample through the Illinois DNA database, hoping for a match. The database is the result of Illinois’ DNA Database Law requires any defendant who is either convicted or received a disposition of court supervision for, completing or attempting to complete a qualified offense to submit a DNA sample to the state’s DNA database. Qualifying offenses include conviction of any felony or crime that requires registration as a sex offender.

The DNA Database Law was expanded in 2012 to require that any suspect arrested and indicted for first-degree murder, home invasion, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault or criminal sexual assault submit a DNA sample within 14 days of the indictment for inclusion in the database. That means a suspect may ultimately be acquitted, or the charges dismissed before trial, but his DNA has already been taken and placed in the state database.

In cases where a link is made in reverse – DNA evidence helps locate a suspect the police otherwise had no way of finding – the match is usually sufficient to persuade a judge to grant a full search and arrest warrant, which may lead the police to uncover other evidence of a crime.

June 5, 2015

Citizens Forcibly Detain Alleged Chicago Robber

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Three Chicago men chased down and forcibly detained a man after he allegedly committed robbery of a woman in the vestibule of a building. The three men tackled the alleged assailant and held him until police arrived. Although there is no indication that police plan to do so, under certain circumstances the three men’s actions could be considered crimes themselves.

Chicago Vigilante Justice

People who prevent crimes are generally regarded as heroes. But there is a price to vigilante justice – just like the criminal justice system, sometimes innocent people are wrongly accused of crimes. That is why the law discourages citizens going out and “righting wrongs” and arrests them for their crimes – think fathers who murder their daughter’s abuser, or a brother murdering the people who killed his sister. Bringing assailants to justice is best left in the hands of the criminal justice system, where all of the evidence is brought before a jury to examine and make a decision on the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

In this case, it is unlikely that the prosecutor would file charges against the three men because their actions followed immediately upon the heels of the alleged crime. Most cases brought against vigilantes are done when their acts were done at some time following the crime, making them more deliberate, as opposed to a heat of the moment case.

That being said, what are some possible charges that could be brought against the three men who detained the alleged assailant, and what are the possible defenses?

Assault

Assault occurs when a person, without lawful authority, puts another in fear of bodily injury. The alleged assailant in this case no doubt feared for his safety as he was being chased by these three men. It’s not like they were chasing him to say hi, or return something he’d just dropped on the street. The minute they yelled and started chasing him, the assault was complete.

Battery

Battery occurs when a person, without legal justification, causes bodily harm to another, or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature. When the three men grabbed the defendant, that contact was sufficient to constitute a battery.

Unlawful Restraint

A person commits the crime of unlawful restraint if he “knowingly without legal authority detains another” person. In this case, the three men clearly detained the alleged assailant, holding him until police arrived. Their action was performed knowingly – that is, intentional – because they chased after him in order to catch and detain him.

Defense

The only defense to each of these charges would be if the men had “lawful authority” to chase and detain the defendant. Illinois law permits a “citizen’s arrest” if the person has “reasonable grounds to believe that an offense . . . is being committed.” In this situation, whether the men had legal authority would hinge on when their chase of the alleged assailant occurred. If it began before the crime was completed – for example, if they heard the woman yell while her purse was being stolen and began the chase – then they would have the legal authority required to make a citizen’s arrest. But if they gave chase after the defendant had already ran away, they would not, because a citizen is only authorized to make an arrest if the crime is being committed, meaning it has not been completed yet.

June 3, 2015

Battery Charge for Sugar Attack on Maroon 5 Front man Adam Levine

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

You’ve no doubt heard about Maroon 5 front man and The Voice star Adam Levine being sugar bombed recently, most likely in reference to the band’s current hit song Sugar. But what the assailant no doubt thought would be a hilarious prank turned out to be not so funny when he was arrested and charged with battery.

Chicago Battery Charge Requires Only Slight Contact

A battery charge isn’t contingent upon the amount of physical harm caused to the victim. It doesn’t matter that it was meant as a prank, and that after the fact, when it was clear Levine suffered no real harm, people laughed. The only thing that matters is that there was contact between the defendant and the victim, and the nature of that contact. In order to be charged with battery the defendant must have:

Acted knowingly;
Without legal justification, and;
Caused bodily harm or;
Made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature.

So how does this apply to the sugar bombing? Let’s examine each element separately.

The ‘knowingly’ requirement

Acting “knowingly” means that the defendant’s action could not have been accidental. The defendant must have either done it on purpose, or acted in a manner that he was reasonably certain would have resulted in Levine getting doused with sugar. If he had been walking down the street with a bag of sugar and dumped it only after tripping, that would not rise to the level of “knowing” required to be convicted of battery.

‘Without legal justification’

This element means that the defendant could not have acted in self-defense, or because he had other legal justification to make physical contact with the victim. It is this “without legal justification” element that protects law enforcement from being charged with battery for routine arrests. The defendant in this case would have to prove that Levine attacked him, and that the defendant threw the sugar to protect himself from the attack.

Caused bodily harm

One way to complete a battery is for the defendant to have caused bodily harm to the victim. The harm doesn’t need to be severe or require medical attention in order to qualify. A scratch or bruise is the same as a broken bone in terms of meeting the harm requirement. If the sugar was thrown with enough force to cause even a reddening, or if it got into Levine’s eyes and caused a stinging, that slightest injury would be sufficient to constitute a battery.

Physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature

The second way to complete a battery is for the contact to be insulting or provoking. A shove may not cause bodily harm, but it is an act that provokes a response. If a shove is accompanied by trash talk, that could constitute contact of an insulting nature.

Physical contact doesn’t need to be to the victim’s body; it can be to an object the victim is holding. Kicking a cane, or pushing a ball out of a person’s hands while making threatening statements could be considered contact of an insulting or provoking nature. The physical contact also does not need to be from the victim’s hand or other body part. The defendant only needs to have been in control of the item that made contact with the victim.

The sugar bombing could meet either of these requirements, depending on the circumstances. If the defendant yelled any derogatory, inflammatory or insulting words to Levine during the attack, that would make it both insulting and provoking and would qualify as a battery. Likewise, throwing anything at a person would be considered provoking, as it could give rise to a retaliatory response by the victim.