State v. SampleState v. Sample
Charles Anderville Sample appeals his conviction for the crime of simple assault. Sample claims that the trial court erred by: (1) holding that simple assault is a lesser included offense of third degree assault by criminal negligence; (2) convicting him of simple assault without requiring the State to meet its burden of disproving self-defense or defense of others or of property; (3) admitting improper evidence of prior bad acts by the defendant; and by admitting improper evidence of Sample's character. We reverse.
On May 27, 1985, at approximately 10 p.m., Sample went to the home of his sister, Patricia Schug, to obtain a key to his mother's residence, the place where he had been staying. When he arrived, Sample pounded on the door and pushed it open, but Patricia told him that he was not welcome and asked him to leave. Instead, the angry Sample began an argument and fight with Charles Schug, Patricia's ex-husband. Patricia fled. She went to the home of Ann Beeler (her landlady), intending to call the police, but Beeler was absent.
As Patricia was leaving Beeler's residence, she saw Sample approaching her. At that point, she picked up a stick with which to protect herself. Although Patricia avoided Sample, she intentionally struck a vehicle belonging to Mary Ann Swanson as she passed it. (This was the automobile in which Sample had arrived.) An irate Sample took
Initially, the State charged Sample with assault in the second degree under former
Sample first contends that the court erred when it convicted him of simple assault as a lesser included offense of third degree assault. He relies on the holding in
State v. Tucker,
The statute, former
(1) [e]very person who, under circumstances not amounting to assault in either the first or second degree, shall be guilty of assault in the third degree when he:
(b) [w]ith criminal negligence, shall cause physical injury to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm[.]
On the other hand, former
[ejvery person who shall commit an assault or an assault and battery not amounting to assault in either the first, second, or third degree shall be guilty of simple assault.
(Italics ours.)
Simple assault is a true or common law assault and requires proof of intent. This State's classic definition of an assault is contained in
Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.,
Thus, it is possible to commit assault in the third degree by criminal negligence without committing simple assault. If it is possible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, the latter is not a lesser included offense.
Cf. State v. Pelkey,
This result is not anomalous when one considers that it is the element of causing actual physical injury in a certain way that makes third degree negligent assault a more grievous or greater offense—a class C felony—than simple assault—a gross misdemeanor. The rationale of State v. Tucker, supra, applies.
Inasmuch as Sample cannot be convicted of an offense not charged, and which is not a lesser included offense, his conviction must be reversed. Const. art. 1, § 22 (amend. 10);
State v. Pelkey,
Sample's other assignments of error have no merit.
Reversed.
Notes
"Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally."
Effective July 1, 1988,
"(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree if, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first, second, or third degree, or custodial assault, he or she assaults another.
"(2) Assault in the fourth degree is a gross misdemeanor."