user
Accomplished Advocate
Further observations on multiple charges arising out of one act:
What the statute (§ 18.2-282) actually says is,
Here's my argument:
The phrase beginning with "in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear", is an adjectival phrase - it does not define an element of the offense, but describes and qualifies the defendant's behavior. It is essential to prove that the firearm was used in that particular way, but it is irrelevant who saw it, or how many people saw it. It is not necessary that anyone actually felt fear or apprehension. In this sense it is equivalent to a criminal assault, which differs from a civil assault in that the plaintiff in the latter case must have actually had the apprehension of an immediate battery. In a criminal case, it is sufficient if the defendant had the means and intent to commit the battery, regardless of the perceptions of the purported victim. This is a criminal statute, so all that is at issue is the behavior of the defendant, not the perceptions of witnesses. There are several cases that discuss brandishing in terms of assault, though each of those cases specifically holds that the phrase, "reasonably induce fear" really means "capable of producing the apprehension", using the same standard as would apply in an assault case. Brandishing is the equivalent, basically, of what many states call, "assault with a deadly weapon".
In support of that contention, I emphasize that it is the act of the defendant that subjects him to criminal punishment, not the perceptions, emotions, or number of onlookers. Note the use of the word, "acts" in the following:
Here's another argument: the use of the singular to describe the person subjected to fear for his life includes the plural. Va. Code §1-227. So the phrase, "in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another..." is equivalent to, "in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the minds of many other people".
What the statute (§ 18.2-282) actually says is,
Here's my argument:
The phrase beginning with "in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear", is an adjectival phrase - it does not define an element of the offense, but describes and qualifies the defendant's behavior. It is essential to prove that the firearm was used in that particular way, but it is irrelevant who saw it, or how many people saw it. It is not necessary that anyone actually felt fear or apprehension. In this sense it is equivalent to a criminal assault, which differs from a civil assault in that the plaintiff in the latter case must have actually had the apprehension of an immediate battery. In a criminal case, it is sufficient if the defendant had the means and intent to commit the battery, regardless of the perceptions of the purported victim. This is a criminal statute, so all that is at issue is the behavior of the defendant, not the perceptions of witnesses. There are several cases that discuss brandishing in terms of assault, though each of those cases specifically holds that the phrase, "reasonably induce fear" really means "capable of producing the apprehension", using the same standard as would apply in an assault case. Brandishing is the equivalent, basically, of what many states call, "assault with a deadly weapon".
In support of that contention, I emphasize that it is the act of the defendant that subjects him to criminal punishment, not the perceptions, emotions, or number of onlookers. Note the use of the word, "acts" in the following:
Roach v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 741, 748, 660 S.E.2d 348 (2008).
Here's another argument: the use of the singular to describe the person subjected to fear for his life includes the plural. Va. Code §1-227. So the phrase, "in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another..." is equivalent to, "in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the minds of many other people".
Last edited:
