Cal. Penal Code Section 241(c); Assault on a Peace Officer:

Photo of Innocent man beaten and falsely arrested for contempt of cop
An innocent man beaten and falsely arrested for contempt of cop

Don’t Let The Police Shift The Blame From Them To You For Their Violation Of Your Constitutional Rights.

 

FREE CASE EVALUATION

 

Assault ON a peace officer is, in the real world, almost always assault BY a peace officer. It is one of those “resistance offenses” that the police falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute the victims of their outrages for. If the police injure you, innocent as you may be, you are going to jail for a crime like Assault on a Peace Officer.

The common-law definition of an “assault” is intentionally placing another in reasonable fear of receiving an imminent violent injury.  the California Supreme Court has decided that it didn’t want persons to escape criminal liability for shooting their pistols recklessly, not intending to shoot anyone. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court has deliberately twisted the California statutory definition of the crime of simple assault into a recklessness offense as opposed to an attempt offense.

The California Penal Code defines an assault as:

Cal. Penal Code § 240; Assault.

An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

Cal. Penal Code § 241(c), provides the penalty for Assault of a Peace Officer:

(c) When an assault is committed against the person of a peace officer . . . firefighter, emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic, lifeguard, process server, traffic officer, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or search and rescue member engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or a physician or nurse engaged in rendering emergency medical care outside a hospital, clinic, or other health care facility, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic, lifeguard, process server, traffic officer, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or search and rescue member engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or a physician or nurse engaged in rendering emergency medical care, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

The California Assault on a Peace Officer Statute is a Scam.

Cal. Penal Code § 21a defines an “attempt” to commit a crime as:

An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission.

Logic would dictate that to commit an assault that one would have to intend to commit a violent injury upon another. However, as often is the case, politics overrules logic and reason. When the courts decide that they want to stick-it to the “bad guy”, they often come-up with some lame justification to pervert clear and unambiguous criminal statutes, to make sure that the “bad guy” gets it.

In People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (2001) the California Supreme Court held that the only intent required under the California assault statute was the intent to do an act, the likely result of which is the application of force to another; not a specific intent to injure another. This of course, is simply not the type of conduct that the Penal Code criminalizes, but nonetheless, that is where we are.

This view is supported by a subsequent California Court of Appeal case that states that the California Supreme Court labored under a “mistake of fact” in the Williams case, because the Court of Appeal can never tell the Supreme Court that they are “wrong” about a legal issue. See, People v Wright, 100 Cal.App.4th 703 (2002), that held:

“In the published portion of the opinion fn. 3 we show the Williams interpretation of section 240 is based upon a mistake of fact, which produced an error of law. Williams asserts the definition of assault in section 240 was first enacted in 1872 and bases its statutory construction on that fact. “Because section 240 was enacted in 1872 and has not been amended, we must construe the Legislature’s intent as of 1872.” ( Williams, supra , 26 Cal.4th at p. 785.)

In fact, the present definition of assault was enacted in 1850 as section 49 of the Crimes and Punishment Act. (Stats. 1850, ch. 99, § 49, p. 234.) It was codified without change in 1872 as section 240 of the new Penal Code. The Supreme Court cases interpreting the 1850 enactment, relied upon by the Code Commissioners in their report to the Legislature, state the 1850 language incorporates the common law definition of assault, which required an intent to inflict injury. This construction, consistent with Smith , would have required reversal of defendant’s conviction in this case. It would not , for reasons we discuss, have required the characterization of section 240 as a specific intent crime.

Nonetheless, we are bound by Williams . We shall conclude the defendant was properly convicted of a negligent assault on the facts of the case. [100 Cal.App.4th 707]”.

Assault on a Peace Officer is Almost Always Assault by a Peace Officer. Contempt of Cop such as verbal protest of or challenge to a peace officer’s conduct will often result in one being beaten-up and falsely arrested and prosecuted for Assault on a Peace Officer.

If you are being charged with or if you were falsely arrested for Assault on a Peace Officer, the Law Office of Jerry L. Steering can help you.

FREE CASE EVALUATION

Law Office of Jerry L. Steering; 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660;            (949) 474-1849; jerrysteering@yahoo.com

Photos of Jerry L. Steering with Bob Dole, Diane Sawyer and Melvin Belli
Jerry L. Steering with Bob Dole, Diane Sawyer and Melvin Belli

3 total views, 2 views today