Nelson v Carroll
Citation: Nelson v Carroll, 735 A.2d 1096 (Md. 1999)
Parties:
- Nelson (plaintiff)
- Carroll (defendant)
Facts:
- Nelson owed Carroll money, and Carroll went to a nightclub to find him. Carroll confronted Nelson, and when he didn’t have the money, Carroll brought out a pistol and hit him in the side of the head. When Nelson didn’t respond to the pistol whip, Carroll went to hit him again, and the pistol went off accidentally, shooting Nelson in the stomach.
Procedural History:
- Nelson filed a motion for a JNOV. The trial court denied the motion. Nelson appealed. The MD Court of Special Appeals agreed with the trial court and held that Nelson failed to properly make the motion with the degree of particularity required by state court rules. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted cert.
Issue:
- Even though Carroll did not intend to shoot Nelson, is the intent element of battery still met because he did mean to hit him in the head?
Rule:
- Even if a person doesn’t mean to cause the specific injury/harm that resulted, if they did intend a harmful or offensive contact with another without that persons consent, it is still battery.
- Battery may occur through direct contact (hitting him in the head) or indirect contact (the bullet hitting him)
Holding:
- Yes, the intent element is still met.
Reasoning:
- It doesn’t matter that Carroll didn’t mean to shoot Nelson. He meant to hit him in the head, which is battery. Just because an injury occurred that Nelson didn’t specifically intend doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to cause a harmful contact. Intending a specific resulting injury is not what the intent element of battery requires.
Decision:
- Reversed
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. This case brief and the others on this website are based solely on my personal understanding of the underlying case. They emphasize the points that my law professors emphasized. You should use them merely as a supplement to your own studies.