Then Columbo didn’t threaten him. You have no leg to stand on here. If he didn’t believe Columbo threatened to harm him than his confession was entirely voluntary.
My argument — and you can disagree with it, but I want to make sure you’re disagreeing with it — is that (a) Columbo intended to cause the guy to fear that bodily harm in general, and death in particular, was about to ensue; that (b) as Columbo intended, the guy then did fear that bodily harm in general, and death in particular, was about to ensue, even though (c) at the time, the guy didn’t think Columbo intended anyone’s harm or death.
If that’s all so, then my understanding is that Columbo has committed a crime by causing that fear with that intent: even if — at the time — the guy didn’t think Columbo had that intent.
You should watch it again. That isn’t a plot hole. Columbo was quite certain that he’d get a big reaction with the staged cigar box.
New word learned; thanks!
Once again, the guy did not fear that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s what mattered. Why he was in fear otherwise doesn’t matter. The confession could have been inadmissible if he believed Columbo intended to harm him, but even you understand that didn’t happen.
Here’s a plot synopsis I found. Basically the rich uncle that the nephew killed had a newfangled thing called a ‘car phone’ and had left a message with the aunt. In the message, that the aunt played for Colombo with McDowall’s character present, the uncle could be heard asking a passenger in his car to pass the cigar box. At which point Colombo observed McDowall’s character look nervous and check his watch. The uncle hung up before the explosion, but it clued Colombo in on the possibility of a rigged cigar box.
Borderline NSFW warning: the synopsis article at the link below contains an episode screenshot of McDowall in pants so tight that, let’s just say, one can judge for themselves whether or not McDowall had a short fuse.
As far as I can tell, if A intends to cause that fear of harm, and B then reacts as intended by fearing that harm, then it doesn’t matter whether B happens to believe that A intends to cause that fear or intends to cause that harm; A can be guilty even if B limits himself to incorrectly concluding that A’s actions will unintentionally cause that harm.
First, a little legal jargon. Assault is a different crime; assault is when you actually physically harm somebody. The crime of threatening to physically harm somebody is menacing.
One of the usual elements in menacing is that there has to be something that an average reasonable person would perceive as a threat.
So pointing a gun at somebody would generally be perceived as a threat (even if I don’t verbally threaten to shoot you). And it wouldn’t matter if the gun is unloaded or a prop gun; the court would say that an average reasonable person would assume that a gun being pointed at them might be loaded and capable of killing them.
But suppose I’m an asshole and I walk up behind you and point a loaded gun at your back. I don’t pull the trigger, so I don’t commit assault or murder. But there’s a good argument I also didn’t commit menacing; you were not aware the loaded gun was pointed at you so were not put in fear of being shot. But I’m probably guilt of endangerment, which is the crime of putting somebody’s life at risk.
To get back to the OP, Columbo’s act would not qualify as a threat because an average reasonable person would not see a cigar box as something which would explode. And absent that threat, there would be no coercion in his action.
Let’s separate two issues to hopefully clarify things:
First, suppose instead of trying to elicit incriminating behavior from a suspect, Columbo had been pranking someone by playing a cruel practical joke on them for larfs. Suppose it was one of his co-workers that Columbo decided to trick into being afraid of imminent death; does the law consider that an assault (ETA: menacing)?
Second, to what extent does the law protect suspects against self-incrimination (which I understand is broader than outright confession). By the letter of such protections, was Columbo’s gambit a prohibited attempt to coerce self-incrimination? As pointed out upthread, the law allows plenty of latitude for giving suspects enough rope to hang themselves with.
If I’m not mistaken, in some jurisdictions, what you call menacing is “assault”
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html for example says:
Battery is the intentional act of making contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner. Depending on the jurisdiction, assault is either the same act or is an attempt or threat to cause bodily injury.
None of that matters. There is only one question here: Did the suspect confess because he had a reasonable belief that Columbo intended to harm him? The answer is clearly no, so the confession is admissible evidence. It doesn’t matter what else Columbo intended, the only thing that matters is what the suspect believed. Once again, he did not believe Columbo intended to harm him.
I looked at a bunch of legal definitions of “threat”, and they all include phrasing like “a threat must convey an intent to harm the victim.”
Columbo intended for the victim to believe he would be harmed. He conveyed an intent to engage in behavior that would harm the victim. But he did not convey an intent to harm the victim. As far as the victim knew, he had no such intent, because he did not convey the intent.
So I’ve gone back on what I originally said. I think that, because he didn’t convey his intent to harm, he’s found a sneaky loophole in the law.
Yes, it’s a tricky gray area that varies depending on what laws are in effect. And IANAL.
The issue is what is defined as an action. If I throw a knife at you and it strikes you, that’s clearly assault even if the knife doesn’t cause any injury. If I throw a knife at you and it misses you, that’s probably going to qualify as assault; I took an action that could have caused you injury even though in actual fact the knife never touched you.
I already offered up a quote that “an assault is ordinarily held to be committed merely by putting another in apprehension of harm, whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict or is capable of inflicting that harm.” Would a second one do it? A third?
I believe you’re incorrect: a relevant question isn’t whether he believed Columbo intended to harm him, but whether he believed that Columbo was going to harm him. Another relevant question is whether Columbo intended to cause him to fear that harm.
Whether he believed Columbo intended to harm him seems irrelevant; it’s not, as far as I can tell, an element of the crime.
What crime?
Why would that matter if he didn’t believe Columbo intended to harm him? His confession could be inadmissible if he was coerced into confessing because of a reasonable belief that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s all that matters. The suspect confessed because he planted a bomb in a cigar box and he thought Columbo would unintentionally set off the bomb and harm him. His fear of unintentional harm doesn’t make his confession inadmissible. Being an idiot does not make a confession inadmissible.
Assault, I’d thought.
Let me make sure I have this straight.
Imagine the facts were different, such that (a) he believed Columbo intended to harm him, and (b) Columbo, who didn’t intend to harm him, intended for him to think that. Do you and I agree that, in such a case, Columbo would be guilty of a crime?
And where we disagree is that, if he merely believed that Columbo was going to harm him — and Columbo, again, intended for him to think that — you don’t think it’s a crime?
Is that the difference?
IANAL, but based on what you described, I think the legality and admissibility of the cigar box trick would be questionable at best. IRL, the police (usually with a partner) will take a statement at or near the scene or will interrogate a suspect in a controlled environment at the police station.
I mean what is the evidence being submitted to a court here?
“Your Honor, I would now like to submit in evidence a private conversation involving a cigar box between Detective Colombo and the suspect during a tram ride over the city where they were the only occupants.”