ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON

This seems like it should be a pretty straightforward crime, so why go over the definition? Two reasons. First, like most people, you probably confuse assault with battery and don’t know the actual difference. And you probably don’t understand the “apprehension” or “immediacy” elements of an assault. So we’ll clear that up by reviewing the definition of assault. Second, you probably aren’t informed about what counts as a “deadly weapon” under Nevada law. You might be surprised.

Assault is defined by state law and applies to acts committed in Las Vegas and everywhere else in Nevada. The specific law that defines assault is NRS 200.471. This statute provides two definitions for assault. Specifically, according to NRS 200.471, “assault” means (1) Unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person, or (2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. That definition isn’t too difficult to understand, but the easiest way to understand assault is to learn what distinguishes it from battery.

Assault versus Battery. Battery is using force or violence on another person. So punching someone is a battery. Under the first definition, assault is an attempted battery. So trying to punch someone but missing is an assault. Under the second definition, an assault is doing anything that makes a person think he’s about to be battered. Trying to punch someone but not connecting would also be an assault under this second definition, but only if the victim sees the punch coming. If the victim has his head turned and doesn’t see the punch coming, then the victim couldn’t be in fear of an immediate battery. But a missed “suckerpunch” is still be an assault under the first definition because it’s an attempted battery.

So why two different definitions? What’s the difference? In most cases where a person could justifiably be charged with assault, both definitions will apply, but there are situations where the first definition might apply but the second one doesn’t (like the missed suckerpunch example I just used).

What about the opposite situation? Can you make a person fear immediate bodily harm without attempting to commit a battery? Yes. That occurs when you don’t actually want to hit the victim, just scare him. So if you wind up and punch a wall right by someone’s head, not wanting to actually connect with the punch (but making the victim think that he’s going to get hit) then you’ve committed an assault under the second definition but not the first. This second situation is more common in real life. One example I see pretty regularly: shooting a gun at someone while intending to miss. You weren’t trying to shoot the victim but he reasonably feared that he was going to be shot.

So that’s why there are two definitions. Sometimes only one of the two definitions applies, but legislators, the people who pass laws, think both situations shouldn’t be allowed in society and should be punished under criminal law.

Apprehension. I use “fear” in place of “apprehension” above when talking about the definition of assault, but technically that’s not correct. Victims do generally “fear” injury when someone attacks them, but fear is not an essential element of assault. For example, if you fire a gun at the victim. The victim believes that he’s Superman and therefore invulnerable to gunfire. So he doesn’t fear being shot because he doesn’t believe he can be harmed. Is this a defense for a potential assault charge? No. Under Nevada law, fear is different than “apprehension” which is the word Nevada’s assault statute actually uses.

So what is “apprehension”? Well, if you Google “apprehension” you get two definitions. The first definition of “apprehension” (which means it’s the primary definition of the term) is: “fear”! according to the first anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen.