Vincent's Case: Vincent V. Vincent For Battery

541 Words3 Pages
Miss Leonardo cannot feasibly press charges against Vincent for battery, as it lacks substantial certainty that Vincent intended to harm Miss Leonardo by throwing his pencil on the desk. The rule for battery indicates there must be an intent to act against another person, an intent to harm another person, and the harm resulting from the intent to harm. Miss Leonardo’s injury of severe eye pain and a broken blood vessel is not in dispute, as it is the result of Vincent throwing the pencil on the desk, it bouncing off the desk, and hitting Miss Leonardo in the eye. Vincent’s intent to act was to throw the pencil on the desk, as Vincent’s anger towards his teacher clearly shows he desired to let out some of his anger, but only in the act of throwing the pencil. Whether or not Vincent intended to harm Miss Leonardo is subject to dispute, as it is unsure if Vincent threw the pencil on the desk with the intention to make contact with Miss Leonardo and result in her injury through this harmful contact.…show more content…
Grem the court concludes battery is harmful contact of one person against another, with the intent to act out and harm the person receiving the harmful contact, which leads to direct or indirect results. Grem attacked Agnes from behind, smashing a “rocks glass” into his head, resulting in a permanent scar after his injury was healed. The court ruled in favor of Agnes. It reasoned that Grem clearly acted with intent, as he was behind Agnes when he attacked him, as well as acted with intent to harm, as he smashed a “rocks glass” into Agnes’s skull to result in injury against Agnes. Though Grem acted recklessly in his actions and intent, it was substantially certain that Grem acted with the intent to cause harm towards

More about Vincent's Case: Vincent V. Vincent For Battery

Open Document