April 7, 2025 • 9 mins
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing four crimes against the person – assault, battery, false imprisonment, and kidnapping. We'll walk through the elements of each crime and see an example which illustrates how they may appear and interact on the bar exam.
In this episode, we discuss:
- The elements of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and kidnapping
- Analysis of a hypothetical scenario involving crimes against the person
Resources:
- "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn)
- Podcast Episode 103: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-103-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery/)
Download the Transcript
(https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-307-listen-and-learn-crimes-against-the-person-part-1/)
If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)!
Thanks for listening!
Alison & Lee
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lee Burgess (00:01):
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we're talking about Criminal Law- specifically, crimes against the person.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience, so you can study
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
(00:23):
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform at BarExamToolbox.com,
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
(00:53):
Today, we are diving into crimesagainst the person - specifically,
assault, battery, falseimprisonment, and kidnapping.
We will walk through the elements of eachcrime and use examples to illustrate how
these crimes may appear and interact onthe bar exam or your law school exams.
So, let's start with assault and battery.
Though these terms areoften used together, they're
(01:15):
actually two distinct crimes.
An assault is an act that createsa reasonable apprehension of an
immediate harm or offensive contact.
Battery, on the other hand, is theactual contact, or the harmful or
offensive touching of another person.
Think of assault as putting someonein fear of being hurt or touched
(01:36):
offensively, while battery isactually hurting or touching them.
Now that we have distinguished thesecrimes, let's break down the elements
of each, starting with assault.
An assault is, [1] an intentionalact; [2] that causes the victim to
be placed in reasonable apprehension;[3] of an imminent harm or offensive
(01:57):
contact with the victim's person.
By "intentional", we mean thatthe defendant acted either, a)
with the purpose of causing suchapprehension; or b) with the
knowledge to a substantial certaintythat the apprehension will result.
Additionally, if a defendant attempts abattery but fails to make contact, this
(02:18):
may constitute an assault if the victimreasonably fears the attempted contact.
Now let's walk throughthe elements of battery.
A battery is, [1] the unlawful applicationof force; [2] directly or indirectly
upon another person or their closepersonal belongings; and [3] that results
(02:39):
in an injury or offensive contact.
Here is the key distinction: Battery requires contact or (02:42):
undefined
the application of force; forassault, no contact is necessary.
This is why an attempted batteryusually results in an assault.
For example, if I swing a punch at youand miss, that's an assault as long as you
reasonably feared I was about to hit you.
(03:03):
On the other hand, the missed punch isnot a battery, because there's no actual
contact or unlawful application of force.
One final note on battery: Notice that the application of (03:11):
undefined
force may be direct or indirect.
An example of the indirect applicationof force is throwing something heavy,
like a rock, at another person.
If the rock hits the otherperson, this is a battery.
If the rock misses, this is likelyan assault, but it is not a battery
(03:32):
because there is no contact.
That wraps up the basicsof assault and battery.
Let's move on to our second set ofrelated crimes against the person
- false imprisonment and kidnapping.
As with assault and battery, thereis some overlap between these crimes.
However, there is also a key distinction.
We will highlight that distinction aswe walk through the elements of each,
(03:54):
starting with false imprisonment.
False imprisonment occurs whenone person intentionally restricts
another's freedom of movement withoutconsent or legal justification.
False imprisonment requires, [1] theunlawful; [2] confinement of a person; [3]
against their will; and [4] with knowledgethat the confinement is unlawful.
(04:17):
By "confinement", we mean thatthe victim has no reasonable
means of escaping the restraint.
Kidnapping has similar requirementsto false imprisonment; however, it
usually requires an additional element- transporting or moving the victim.
This transporting or moving of thevictim is called "asportation".
So, a kidnapping is, [1] the intentional;and [2] unlawful confinement; and [3]
(04:42):
movement of a person against their will.
Some jurisdictions also require thatthe movement must be accomplished
by force, threat of force, or fraud.
So, let's work through a hypotheticalthat will help us understand how
these crimes against the personplay out in real world situations.
Here's our scenario (05:00):
Dave is angry at his coworker Pete for
getting a promotion Dave wanted.
One day in the office parking lot,Dave sees Pete getting into his car.
Dave picks up a rock and startswalking quickly toward Pete with
the rock raised over his head.
Pete sees Dave coming and,frightened, quickly gets into
his car and locks the doors.
(05:21):
Dave then throws the rock, but hitsPete's car window instead of Pete.
Frustrated, Dave stands behind Pete'scar, refusing to move and preventing Pete
from backing out of the parking space forabout 15 minutes until security arrives.
So, let's analyze what crimesDave may have committed.
We have several issues to explore here.
First issue (05:43):
Did Dave commit assault when he approached Pete with the rock?
As a reminder, assault requires,[1] an intentional act; [2] that
causes the victim to be placed inreasonable apprehension; [3] of
an imminent harmful, or offensivecontact with the victim's person.
Analyzing these elements, Daveintentionally acted when he approached
(06:03):
Pete with the rock, because Dave,at the very least, knew how this
act of approaching Pete with a rockover his head will result in Pete
having a reasonable apprehensionof an imminent harmful contact.
And Pete was placed in this reasonableapprehension, because he appeared
frightened, quickly jumping intothe car and locking the doors.
Additionally, Dave approaching Petewith a rock certainly appears capable
(06:26):
of causing an imminent harmful contact.
Therefore, Dave committed assaultwhen he approached Pete with a rock.
Second issue (06:33):
Did Dave commit battery when the rock hit Pete's car?
To review, a battery is, [1] the unlawfulapplication of force; [2] directly or
indirectly upon another person or theirclose personal belongings that, [3]
results in an injury or offensive contact.
Here, although Dave intendedharmful contact with Pete, he
(06:55):
missed and hit the car instead.
No battery occurred, because there wasno actual contact with Pete's person.
However, Dave likely committed aproperty crime by damaging the car.
Third issue (07:08):
Did Dave commit false imprisonment by blocking Pete's car?
False imprisonment requires, [1] theunlawful; [2] confinement of a person; [3]
against their will; and [4] with knowledgethat the confinement is unlawful.
By "confinement", we mean thatthe victim has no reasonable
means of escaping the restraint.
(07:29):
Analyzing these facts, Dave clearly actedto confine Pete by blocking his car.
This confinement is unlawful, becauseit is not legal to intentionally
block a driver in a parking space.
Additionally, this confinement isagainst Pete's will, because Pete
has not consented to the confinement.
However, was the confinement sufficientfor false imprisonment - meaning,
(07:52):
did Pete have a reasonable meansof escaping the confinement?
Well, Pete could have potentiallygotten out of his car and walked
away, though that might have puthim at risk of attack from Dave.
This is a closer call, but Daveprobably did commit false imprisonment.
Even though Pete could theoreticallyhave left his car, courts generally
hold that victims aren't requiredto risk harm to escape confinement.
(08:14):
So, there are likely sufficientfacts here to establish that Dave
committed false imprisonment.
But what about kidnapping?
Here, the elements of kidnappingare not satisfied, because Dave
has not moved or transported Pete.
Therefore, while Dave may havecommitted false imprisonment, he
is unlikely guilty of kidnapping.
So, that concludes the first part of ourdiscussion on crimes against the person.
(08:37):
In our next episode, we'll continueexploring these concepts with
more complex scenarios involvingpotential assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and kidnapping.
We'll analyze situations where theline between these crimes becomes
blurrier and examine how these offensescan escalate from one to another.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
(09:00):
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at BarExamToolbox.com.
(09:23):
Thanks for listening, andjoin us next time for Part 2
of crimes against the person.
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we're talking about Criminal Law- specifically, crimes against the person.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience, so you can study
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
(00:23):
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform at BarExamToolbox.com,
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
(00:53):
Today, we are diving into crimesagainst the person - specifically,
assault, battery, falseimprisonment, and kidnapping.
We will walk through the elements of eachcrime and use examples to illustrate how
these crimes may appear and interact onthe bar exam or your law school exams.
So, let's start with assault and battery.
Though these terms areoften used together, they're
(01:15):
actually two distinct crimes.
An assault is an act that createsa reasonable apprehension of an
immediate harm or offensive contact.
Battery, on the other hand, is theactual contact, or the harmful or
offensive touching of another person.
Think of assault as putting someonein fear of being hurt or touched
(01:36):
offensively, while battery isactually hurting or touching them.
Now that we have distinguished thesecrimes, let's break down the elements
of each, starting with assault.
An assault is, [1] an intentionalact; [2] that causes the victim to
be placed in reasonable apprehension;[3] of an imminent harm or offensive
(01:57):
contact with the victim's person.
By "intentional", we mean thatthe defendant acted either, a)
with the purpose of causing suchapprehension; or b) with the
knowledge to a substantial certaintythat the apprehension will result.
Additionally, if a defendant attempts abattery but fails to make contact, this
(02:18):
may constitute an assault if the victimreasonably fears the attempted contact.
Now let's walk throughthe elements of battery.
A battery is, [1] the unlawful applicationof force; [2] directly or indirectly
upon another person or their closepersonal belongings; and [3] that results
(02:39):
in an injury or offensive contact.
Here is the key distinction: Battery requires contact or (02:42):
undefined
the application of force; forassault, no contact is necessary.
This is why an attempted batteryusually results in an assault.
For example, if I swing a punch at youand miss, that's an assault as long as you
reasonably feared I was about to hit you.
(03:03):
On the other hand, the missed punch isnot a battery, because there's no actual
contact or unlawful application of force.
One final note on battery: Notice that the application of (03:11):
undefined
force may be direct or indirect.
An example of the indirect applicationof force is throwing something heavy,
like a rock, at another person.
If the rock hits the otherperson, this is a battery.
If the rock misses, this is likelyan assault, but it is not a battery
(03:32):
because there is no contact.
That wraps up the basicsof assault and battery.
Let's move on to our second set ofrelated crimes against the person
- false imprisonment and kidnapping.
As with assault and battery, thereis some overlap between these crimes.
However, there is also a key distinction.
We will highlight that distinction aswe walk through the elements of each,
(03:54):
starting with false imprisonment.
False imprisonment occurs whenone person intentionally restricts
another's freedom of movement withoutconsent or legal justification.
False imprisonment requires, [1] theunlawful; [2] confinement of a person; [3]
against their will; and [4] with knowledgethat the confinement is unlawful.
(04:17):
By "confinement", we mean thatthe victim has no reasonable
means of escaping the restraint.
Kidnapping has similar requirementsto false imprisonment; however, it
usually requires an additional element- transporting or moving the victim.
This transporting or moving of thevictim is called "asportation".
So, a kidnapping is, [1] the intentional;and [2] unlawful confinement; and [3]
(04:42):
movement of a person against their will.
Some jurisdictions also require thatthe movement must be accomplished
by force, threat of force, or fraud.
So, let's work through a hypotheticalthat will help us understand how
these crimes against the personplay out in real world situations.
Here's our scenario (05:00):
Dave is angry at his coworker Pete for
getting a promotion Dave wanted.
One day in the office parking lot,Dave sees Pete getting into his car.
Dave picks up a rock and startswalking quickly toward Pete with
the rock raised over his head.
Pete sees Dave coming and,frightened, quickly gets into
his car and locks the doors.
(05:21):
Dave then throws the rock, but hitsPete's car window instead of Pete.
Frustrated, Dave stands behind Pete'scar, refusing to move and preventing Pete
from backing out of the parking space forabout 15 minutes until security arrives.
So, let's analyze what crimesDave may have committed.
We have several issues to explore here.
First issue (05:43):
Did Dave commit assault when he approached Pete with the rock?
As a reminder, assault requires,[1] an intentional act; [2] that
causes the victim to be placed inreasonable apprehension; [3] of
an imminent harmful, or offensivecontact with the victim's person.
Analyzing these elements, Daveintentionally acted when he approached
(06:03):
Pete with the rock, because Dave,at the very least, knew how this
act of approaching Pete with a rockover his head will result in Pete
having a reasonable apprehensionof an imminent harmful contact.
And Pete was placed in this reasonableapprehension, because he appeared
frightened, quickly jumping intothe car and locking the doors.
Additionally, Dave approaching Petewith a rock certainly appears capable
(06:26):
of causing an imminent harmful contact.
Therefore, Dave committed assaultwhen he approached Pete with a rock.
Second issue (06:33):
Did Dave commit battery when the rock hit Pete's car?
To review, a battery is, [1] the unlawfulapplication of force; [2] directly or
indirectly upon another person or theirclose personal belongings that, [3]
results in an injury or offensive contact.
Here, although Dave intendedharmful contact with Pete, he
(06:55):
missed and hit the car instead.
No battery occurred, because there wasno actual contact with Pete's person.
However, Dave likely committed aproperty crime by damaging the car.
Third issue (07:08):
Did Dave commit false imprisonment by blocking Pete's car?
False imprisonment requires, [1] theunlawful; [2] confinement of a person; [3]
against their will; and [4] with knowledgethat the confinement is unlawful.
By "confinement", we mean thatthe victim has no reasonable
means of escaping the restraint.
(07:29):
Analyzing these facts, Dave clearly actedto confine Pete by blocking his car.
This confinement is unlawful, becauseit is not legal to intentionally
block a driver in a parking space.
Additionally, this confinement isagainst Pete's will, because Pete
has not consented to the confinement.
However, was the confinement sufficientfor false imprisonment - meaning,
(07:52):
did Pete have a reasonable meansof escaping the confinement?
Well, Pete could have potentiallygotten out of his car and walked
away, though that might have puthim at risk of attack from Dave.
This is a closer call, but Daveprobably did commit false imprisonment.
Even though Pete could theoreticallyhave left his car, courts generally
hold that victims aren't requiredto risk harm to escape confinement.
(08:14):
So, there are likely sufficientfacts here to establish that Dave
committed false imprisonment.
But what about kidnapping?
Here, the elements of kidnappingare not satisfied, because Dave
has not moved or transported Pete.
Therefore, while Dave may havecommitted false imprisonment, he
is unlikely guilty of kidnapping.
So, that concludes the first part of ourdiscussion on crimes against the person.
(08:37):
In our next episode, we'll continueexploring these concepts with
more complex scenarios involvingpotential assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and kidnapping.
We'll analyze situations where theline between these crimes becomes
blurrier and examine how these offensescan escalate from one to another.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
(09:00):
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at BarExamToolbox.com.
(09:23):
Thanks for listening, andjoin us next time for Part 2
of crimes against the person.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.