Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
> 
>>> You don't necessarily have to be aware of the exact
>>> consequence, though. If you expected your wrongful action to be an
>>> assault, and it resulted in death, you would still be criminally
>>> culpable for the death. 
>>
>>
>>
>> An assault can not result in a death. Neither can a battery, as a 
>> battery that results in death would merge into one of the homicide 
>> offenses depending on the MENS REA. I think the relevant California 
>> case on this application of the merger doctrine is _People v. Wilson_.
> 
> 
> Please read what I wrote more carefully. 

I did. Did you?

> Assume I threatened to punch 
> you in the nose, and proceeded to do so. 

Well, then we wouldn't have an assault anymore, would we? In most 
jurisdictions, this criminal assault would merge into criminal battery, 
depending on the length of time between the threat and the punch.

Of course, your original hypothetical said nothing about battery. It 
mentioned an assault resulting in death. While I previously said that an 
assault could not result in death, that was not correct. For example, an 
assault could conceivably cause the victim to have heart attack and die. 
However, somehow I don't think this is what you had in mind when you 
talked about an assault causing a death.

> Further assume that you died as 
> a result of the blow. 

Ooh! I like that "further assume"! It's so...hypothetical. It's also a 
shift of ground from your original statement in which an assault caused 
the death. Now we have a punch to the nose i.e. a battery.

> I would be criminally responsible for your death 
> and charged with some variation of homicide. The fact that I *expected* 
> to commit assault and battery, 

Is "assault and battery" a crime in California? In Florida, they 
(generally) merge.

> and *expected* the result to be a bloody 
> nose, doesn't excuse my culpability for the death. 

But where did the battery come from all of the sudden? You were talking 
only about assault, and now you reply "Please read the words [that I did 
not write] more carefully". Maybe I'm too much of a Scalia, but I can 
only go by the text presented to me.

> The result was 
> homicide, and that is what I would be charged with.

A person cannot be charged with "homicide" because there is no such 
crime as "homicide".

What's the difference between intent and recklessness? Oh, and what 
about those points you snipped out regarding mens rea?

Ta ta,
K