In re: Frog versus W. Witch, we find insufficient evidence that the criminal charge of assault and battery, i.e., the intent to commit grievous bodily harm to the plaintiff [viz, Frog] is applicable to the events heretofore related in open court.
Though unquestionably our client, the defendant [viz, W. Witch] deprived the plaintiff of access to his wealth, title, and property, the plaintiff suffered no bodily harm in the process of being transmogrified into a healthy specimen of frog. Our client’s spell was painless and, indeed, cured the plaintiff of his incidental human diseases, with a net health benefit.
We beg the court to consider this when pronouncing its verdict.
Hmm. I figure enchanting someone against their will would be roughly analogous to drugging them against their will. What’s the specific charge for slipping someone a roofie? If it’s considered a form of assault, then so should froggifying someone without their prior consent.
If this is a bench trial, and I’m the judge, you’re not going to be happy with my decision.
In general (although greatly dependant on the jurisdiction involved), assault is the attempt to commit or the threat of a battery. A battery is the infliction of an injury on a person or bodily contact likely to cause injury or bodily harm.
Defense counsel contends that the transformation of the victim into a frog is not an example of bodily harm within the meaning of the crimes of assault and battery. Since I can find no cases that directly address magical transformation, this is an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction.
I find as a matter of fact that W. Witch did transform the victim into the form of a frog, and did so knowingly, deliberately, and with malice. I find that as a matter of law, this conduct constitutes bodily harm and is therefore a battery within the meaning of the law.
Harm is “an act that damages or hurts,” (www.m-w.com); and it cannot be contested that, contrary to defense’s characterization, the human form once held by the victim is not only damaged but completely destroyed by the transformation. It is true that the damage is reversible, either by later action of the accused or, as some commentators suggest, by the kiss of a human female, but this fact does not vitiate the harm caused. Indeed, more conventional harms heal of their own accord: black eyes heal, bloody noses mend, and bruises vanish, but no one would argue that these injuries would NOT be indicia of a battery.
Because the prosecution chose to charge this as an assault and battery rather than a more severe assault charge, I do not consider whether these facts could also sustain a conviction for a more aggravated battery charge.
If the victim’s human body was entirely destroyed by the spell and replaced by another, how can be sure that this court has jurisdiction over the case at all? The veracity of the plaintiff’s claim, that he is in fact a human who has been froggified, allegedly by W. Witch, has not been verified. For all we know, this is an ordinary talking frog and not a former human as the plaintiff claims. We request this frog’s suit be moved to a courtroom with jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by frogs.
Furthermore, if a magical transformation is defined as destroying one body and replacing it with another, then should we not consider the counterspell, the kiss of a human female, is itself an act of assault?
On appeal, largely because this would let me outrank Bricker and I find that amusing, since he can probably buy and sell me several times over, I would uphold my learned bretheren’s well reasoned opinion. The case is remanded to Judge Bricker for sentencing.
So mote it be.
It’s not a lawsuit. It’s a criminal prosecution. From the OP:
(emphasis mine)
No - because consent is a defense to the crime of assault. Presumably the victim, in his frog form, consents to the kiss that will transform him back. If, for some bizarre reason, he does not consent, then yes, it would be a crime.
Okay — that’s just my scant knowledge of legal proceedings speaking. Still, wouldn’t you have to begin by proving that the frog was enmagicked first? Before you try somebody for murder, do you not have to first have a corpse?
DC 25, if the, um, judge is generous; otherwise it can’t be done.
Bricker, at what time does the consent have to occur? As we all know, sometimes a victim’s mind survives the transformation into a frog–but other times, the victim is convinced (until the cure occurs) that he really is a frog. In the latter case, can kissin’ consent be applied retroactively? That is, if the frog hops away from the princess, does that negate the consent defense?
I’m wondering also whether kidnapping charges might apply, inasmuch as a frog is far less mobile than a person, and the witch has greatly reduced the victim’s mobility. Given that the spell could also have turned the victim into a fish (which would kill the victim under most circumstances), can we get this upgraded to assault with a deadly weapon?
That is, it’s absolutely required in this case to prove that the frog was the result of the magic spell that transformed a human body. But no, you don’t need a corpse to try someone for murder.
In this case, I based my factual finding on the accused’s own admission:
The defendant admitted casting the spell and admitted that the result was the frog’s body replacing that of the human body of her victim. If the accused had denied it, then of course there would need to be something else in the record upon which I could base that finding.
Ah, but if the victim has the mind of a frog, then he is unable to press charges for attempted assault against any member of the nobility with a kink for amphibians. While the situation you describe is an interesting hypothetical, clearly it has no application to real world litigation over misuse of transmutation spells.
From a practical standpoint, the consent can be retroactive – because, after all, at trial the former frog/current human could testify that he consented.
From a strictly legal standpoint, the consent must be given ahead of time. So what happens if the frog really wanted to remain a frog, and is bitterly disappointed at his retransformation, and insists on pressing assault charges against the princess? I think her best defense is mistake of fact - she can argue that she mistakenly, under the circumstances, believed she had constructive if not actual consent, and it would be up to the fact-finder to decide if her mistake was reasonable.
Too many unknowns. I think the battery charge is a safe one. Kidnapping often (though not always) requires an asportation element – that is, the victim must be carried away. Even if the crime doesn’t have that element, it usually requires the unlawful detention or seizure of another. Injuring someone so that they can’t move is not sufficient to trigger this condition, since the intent of the actor was not to seize or detain, but merely to injure.
Now, if the record adduced that the spell was cast in order to seize or detain, and if the kidnapping statutes in the jurisdiction don’t have an asportation element, then… maybe.
Again, it depends on the factual record that might be developed on the precise nature of the spell in question. This is the first I’ve heard that the spell could result in a fish and that this could permanantly kill – but if the record reflected credible evidence for that, then I’d say yes.
Yeah, “permanently kill”. If the witch killed the victim, then cast a raise dead spell, can the prosecutor charge her with muder or only aggravated assault?
But the spell itself is the weapon, and it is fashioned in such a way to transform its subject however the spellcaster wants. So, by the nature of the spell, it is a deadly weapon, in that the caster can use it to transform the recipient into a fish despite the fact that they did not. Furthermore, a polymorph spell is a deadly weapon regardless of intent, if the victim fails their System Shock roll.
Only in those realms following the magical system detailed in the treatise by E. Gary Gygax. In Norrath, by contrast, Druidic polymorph magic is rarely fatal*, and virtually never permanently so. Of course, it is also not able to be cast upon someone that has not joined one’s group.
*Bards do sing of one young Druid who unwisely chose to avail himself of his recently learned ability to polymorph himself into a wolf while in melee range of a high level Barbarian NPC. It probably was not the legendary Oakbrow. He was never foolish.
None of those facts are part of the record. If evidence for them were adduced at trial, then an aggravated assault charge might be possible. If a spell is a weapon within the meaning of the law, then we might reach the deadly weapon issue.
Your honor, you appear to have found that any transmutation, regardless of duration, intent of caster, or actual effect, can be taken as a form of assault. Have you considered the possible chilling effect this could have on spellcasters? For instance, a wandering wizard who would ordinarily provide magical aid to any folk in peril they encountered may now refrain, for fear of potential criminal charge. I would strongly request that you emphasize that it is the specific use of the well-named Baleful Polymorph spell that is on trial here, and not the larger, broader category of transmutation magic in general.
On the contrary, I noted above that the maiden’s kiss would not be an assault because the frog consents. A wizard that casts a spell to render aid would certainly have the consent of the person being aided.
Even if the consent can’t be explictly determined ahead of time, there’s not likely to be a problem. As an analogy, if I press myself on you and press my lips to yours when you don’t want me to, that’s assault. But if I come upon you when - er, that is, if I encounter you when you’re unconscious and not breathing, and begin to administer artificial respiration, it’s not assault.
