Judge Bricker, is it relevant for the finding of assault that a frog has a significantly shorter life-span than a human being? Counsel for the defense argued that the transformation from a human body with normal ills to a perfectly healthy frog was a net health benefit. However, even the healthiest frog would suffer decrepitude and death long before a human of average health. If the record revealed that, in fact, the victim had been transformed into a healthy frog of normal frog lifespan, would the reduction in life expectancy further cement the finding of assault, or do you feel that this isn’t even something you need to consider in this case?
Thank you, your honor. Also, do you have any summer clerkships available?
But wouldn’t an involuntary kiss be a form of sexual assault? I was under the impression that, in most jurisdictions, a mistake of fact as to the victim’s state of consent was not a valid defense against sexual assault.
But of course. How else does one explain the condition of the OP?
We would like to point out that there is another case before the Supreme Court at this time involving a gentleman who was turned to stone by a single glance at Medusa. The en-stoned plaintiff is claiming assault charges on these very grounds, despite how he had to peer through Medusa’s drapes to catch a glimpse of her as she was inside her house. Medusa, the defendant, took no voluntary action, and has filed a civil countersuit for trespassing.
As long as we’re merely discussing assault and battery, as the OP specified, we don’t need to reach the issue of life-spans, greater vulnerability to predators, or whatever other of the myriad differences between a frog and a person might be divined. The mere fact of the transformation constitutes a battery.
If the court had been called upon to consider aggravated battery, which requires greater harm, we might well have needed to develop a record that showed something about lifespans. On the record presented in the OP, I don’t know that would have been able to find guilt on an aggravated battery charge. Unfortunately for defendant Witch, the charge as presented in the OP, together with her own counsel’s admission, made a complete record with respect to the lesser charge.
For information about clerkships, please see the clerk of the court, Madame Morrible, for an application. Nice lady, 'though there’s something about her…
You might be thinking of statutory rape, which stands virtually alone amongst criminal laws that impose strict liability – that is, they do not have a scienter, or mental state, requirement. But for general sexual assault, a mistake of fact is absolutely relevant as a defense – it shows that the accused lacked the requisite mens rea, or guilty mind.
The mistake must be reasonable… but if you meet up with your wife after work at the local bar and give her a friendly grope hello… only to find that it’s some other woman dressed exactly like your wife was and built similarly… you’ve not committed a crime. Of course, if it develops that you’ve “mistaken” six women just this month for your wife, then your defense starts to unravel. That’s why one exception to the general prohibition against the admission of prior bad acts in a criminal trial is to show absence of mistake. So if you were tried for that assault, and claimed you were honestly mistaken, the prosecution could introduce your previous groping against you, when they might not be able to introduce that evidence otherwise…
Isn’t the intent (motive) of using the Polymorph Other spell also part of the equation?
Could it not be concluded through evidence brought at trial that the witch believed/believes that being a frog instead of a human is a “bad thing”, fraught with potential mental anquish or increased potential for physical harm (due to unfamiliarity with living in the new body), something we can reasonably conclude most humans wish to avoid?
And if she knew or believed this, the act of then inflicting this unwanted condition upon the victim, and without prior consent, is what qualifies as “Battery”?
The Op hasnt stated exactly what defense was used at the trial. (“W.Witch: Prince Not-so-Charming fell into his own moat. I changed him into a frog so that he wouldn’t drown, and would gain the natural ability to swim…”)
As per the thread title, the spell used was Baleful Polymorph, which is a version of the Polymorph spell specifically crafted for offensive use. Under 3.5 edition rules, there is no “Polymorph Other” spell. There’s Polymorph, which can only target a willing creature, Baleful Polymorph, which can target any creature, but allows a saving throw, and Polymorph Any Object, which is essentially a Baleful Polymorph that also works on inanimate objects.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean it must always be used offensively, does it? If W. Witch were trying to save P. Charming from drowning in the moat, and didn’t happen to have the ordinary consent-version of Polymorph prepared, or had used Polymorph earlier that day, the right Baleful Polymorph could achieve a beneficial effect in certain rare circumstances. Furthermore, if P. Charming was drowning, unconscious, or similarly unaware of W. Witch’s intent, Baleful Polymorph may be the only way to save him, precisely because it doesn’t require him to consent.
In the absence of a DNPR order (Do Not Polyresuscitate) or a Poly Alert bracelet, in limited circumstances the Baleful Polymorph may be considered justifiable, might it not?
An additional complication is the optional Wild Mage rules, in which an ordinary spell can, at random times, affect a random target with a bizarre polymorph-like effect (depending on the roll on the Wild Surge table). We will not discuss legal ramifications of the 2nd-edition druid spell Reincarnate.
Sure. In this sort of situation, we might say that the use of Baleful Polymorph creates a rebuttable presumption of malice. While there are potentially innocent explanations for its use, the burden of proof would shift to the caster to show it wasn’t intended to harm.
With reference to the issue of “harm” in relation to a fictive personage such as Plaintiff, I respectfully submit that the findings in Coyote v. Acme (US SW Dist Ct., docket #B191294, not yet reported formally) have relevance.
I’m trying real hard to find some way that Frog v. W. Witch could be adjudicated under last week’s ruleset of Agora Nomic, without triggering an automatic dismissal due to irrelevancy.
Well, the frog’s attorney is going to have some trouble. Like, in private the frog is singing and dancing and explaining in great detail the assault. Then they go to court and put the frog on the stand and it’s just, “Ribbit”.
Indeed, as evidenced here in this closed circuit security cam video, I contend that this is proof that the plaintiff was indeed attempting to woo a princess to undue said assault spell. He therefore viewed his situation as undesireable. His reticence in public is further proof that he wished not to pursue a life of fame and fortune as an amphibian.
Blackstone recognizes “witchcraft, conjuration, inchantment (sic) or sorcery” as a crime at common law punishable by death. The crime is “a truth to which every nation in the world in its turn [has] borne testimony.” Commentaries, Book IV, Chap.4, V.I.
He doesn’t make a distinction for ‘the good kind,’ either.
