Available under Creative Commons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Review the examples with Gina and Geoff. Change the examples, and imagine that Gina did not consume any alcohol and was not threatened by Geoff. If Gina offers to be the donkey in the pin the tail on the donkey game and Geoff stabs her in the buttocks with the pin, Geoff may be able to use consent as a defense to battery. Gina’s consent appears to be knowing and voluntary. Gina probably does not suffer serious bodily injury from the pin stab in the buttocks. Thus the elements of legal consent exist, and this situation is appropriate for the consent defense.
Figure 5.8 Diagram of Defenses, Part 1
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Two elements are required for the consent defense: the defendant must consent knowingly (cannot be too young, mentally incompetent, or intoxicated) and voluntarily (cannot be forced, threatened, or tricked).
- Three situations where consent can operate as a defense are sexual offenses, situations that do not result in serious bodily injury or death, and sporting events.
EXERCISES
Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.
- Allen tackles Brett during a high school football game, and Brett is severely injured. Can Allen b e criminally prosecuted for battery? Why or why not?
- Read Donaldson v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1614 (1992). In Donaldson, the defendant sought court permission to be cryogenically frozen because he had a brain tumor and wanted to be frozen until there was a cure. The defendant also sought to protect the individual who was going to help with the process and filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction and immunity from criminal prosecution forassisted suicide. The defendant claimed he had a constitutional right to consentto this procedure. Did the Court of Appeals of California uphold the defendant’s right to be frozen—that is, to commit suicide? The case is available at this link: http://http//www.rickross.com/reference/alcor/alcor7.html%E2%80%8B
- Read Rameyv.State, 417 S.E.2d 699 (1992). In Ramey, the defendant, a police officer, was convicted of battery for beating the defendant with a flashlight and burning his nipples. The defendant claimed that the victim, who appeared to have mental problems, consented to this treatment. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the consent defense. Did the Court of Appeals of Georgia uphold the defendant’s conviction? The case is available at this link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10809733884390698075&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_vis=1
- 2232 reads
