Why was this guy charged with simple assault and not aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon?

Question

My husband was riding a small trail bike down the road when this guy came out of the bushes and hit him across the hand with an ax handle. My huband suffered a serious injury to his knuckle. They were shattered and required surgery. This random act of violence cost my husband his livlihood. The guy admitted to doing this he was not drunk he is a 70 yr old retired carpenter. he said he was tired of motorcycles atv etc going up and down this street which is a public street. 5 days later he punched another guy no serious injuries to this guy but he was again charged with simple assault. I don't understand why he is not charged with a felony for my husbands injuries. we may lose our house due to this jerk.

Answer 1

I know it won't make YOU feel any better, but unfortunately, the DAG must go by the letter of the law in these cases. Here is a definition from Answers.com:

Aggravated assault is a form of violent crime.

In many jurisdictions, a person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:

attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another person; or
causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in circumstances where the person has exhibited indifference to human life; or
attempts or causes bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon.
Aggravated assault is usually differentiated from simple assault by the offender's intent (i.e., to murder, to rape etc.), the extent of the injury to the victim, or the use of a deadly weapon, although legal definitions vary between jurisdictions. Sentences for aggravated assault are generally more severe, reflecting the greater degree of harm or malice intended by the perpetrator.

Since the *intent* here was simply to smack the riders hand and not do severe bodily harm, only simple assault was the charge. As to assault with a deadly weapon, this definition, when you click on weapon, still regards that as gun, knife, sword, etc., but I believe the underlying factor here would still be intent -- the weapon was not meant to be wielded in a deadly fashion.

As I said, I understand that this is small comfort to you in your current situation. The only thing I can possibly offer as an idea is that you contact a lawyer and work on the civil side of things -- lose of wages, perhaps? Reimbursement of medical expense? Good luck.

Answer 2

He could be charged with aggravated assault due to the use of a weapon. However, the degree to which the weapon is "deadly," the actual danger of life-threatening harm to your husband, and the nature and severity of his actual injuries are all factors. Chances are, the police, District Attorney, or both decided the actual danger posed toward your husband by a 70-year old man with an axe handle did not not warrant an aggravated assault charge (as compared to say, a 25-year old body builder who is a former green beret and wielding a samurai sword). Also, they sometimes factor in things like prior record and possible mental health conditions. A lot of it has to do with what they think a jury would go for if the case went to trial. It's also difficult to say because laws such as the ones you're talking about vary from state to state.

Answer 3

Your husband, as the victim of a crime, has the right to know. He needs to get in touch with the city/county prosecutor in the case and start asking questions. He also has a right to any police reports that were filed in the case. Go to the police/sheriffs department and ask for a copy of the report. He may get charged a nominal fee, but at least he will have what he needs to start asking questions. It could be that the officer that took the initial report didn't ask the right questions.

Answer 4

I hope I never have to tell my wife I was beat up by a 70 year old retired person......

Answer 5

You need to talk to the investigating officers and the district attorney. You need to express that you desire to have this man charged; however, it sounds more like he has dementia and needs supervision.

Answer 6

you can sue him-I would.