What constitutes verbal assault?
What is considered verbal assault can vary from state to state but regardless of where in the United States you live, most of us can determine what constitutes verbal assault and what does not. Verbal assault typically refers to the use of threatening remarks or aggressive behavior that would be likely to make a reasonable person afraid and annoyed. Verbal assault may or may not cross over into the realm of verbal abuse.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to verbally assault someone is "to attack by a verbal assault; to shout angrily at someone for something that person has done; to criticize or reprimand harshly.
It may help to think about what verbal assault does not mean. For example, arguments can turn into verbal assault cases, but not always. When a fight breaks out, an argument might escalate. If that happens, given the right circumstances, the argument may cross over from simply being angry to someone actually committing physical violence. This is when verbal assault may come into play.
As Merriam-Webster notes, verbal assault is not the same as emotional abuse. To determine whether port of a word constitutes as verbal assault in criminal law, there are specific elements of the crime that must be met. This means that only certain acts or threats can constitute verbal assault as we understand it.
If someone verbally assaults you, the circumstance will likely depend on whether you pursue criminal charges against that person for their actions. Consider an instance in which someone threatens to harm you or your family members if you don’t do what they ask of you. On the surface, this is just a threat – but as we’ll explain below, it’s possible for this threat to cross the line into verbal assault territory.
There are different types of verbal assault. In some states, using threat codes is a popular way to test the legal system, and another form of verbal assault.
Some forms of verbal assault are so heinous, it’s hard to imagine them falling under the heading of verbal assault . Of course, serious threats to your safety, such as the examples mentioned above, would certainly fall under the legal definition of assault in the first degree.
To show an example, California Penal Code ยง 422 PC is the state law where verbal assault is outlined and punishments assigned.
In California, the elements of the crime of verbal assault include the following:
There are a few other points worth mentioning at this time. First, note that the examples above – while clear instances of verbal assault – do not include the word "assault" anywhere in them. In other words, the element of the crime of verbal assault can exist without the element "assault" in it.
Second, these two words are not even related to each other in their definitions. While assault refers to the threat of causing bodily harm or offensive contact, verbal assault refers to the threatening of harm that’s not physical.
Now, there’s context in the air here that needs to be avoided, because some people see the word "assault" and are more likely to be fearful of its presence, and act accordingly, whereas other people may see "verbal" and think that it’s nothing to be concerned about. That’s a dangerous mindset to have – for both parties involved.
Sure, penalties for verbal assault are less serious than for other forms of "real" assault, but that doesn’t mean that verbal assault should not be taken very seriously. For example, California Penal Code section 422.7 PC (California’s "sentencing enhancement") increases the punishment for any other crime in which verbal assault is a factor. The length of the enhancement ranges depending on the severity of the alleged attack, but can lead to multiple years of imprisonment in the state of California.
This is not to say that verbal assault is at the same level as other forms of assault. There’s no wispy line, separating verbal assault from other more "serious" forms of assault that must be understood with utmost accuracy. It just means that the context is not studied comprehensively when someone hears the word "assault". They should be; especially when it comes to matters of verbal assault.
Legal implications for verbal assault
In virtually every state, mental assault (also called verbal assault) is treated as a criminal offense. After all, the point of a verbal attack is to inflict psychological distress on the victim and that’s usually why it’s prosecuted as an assault.
While verbal assault may cover a lot of territory – and is therefore one of the more ambiguous offenses you can be charged with – it can still carry a sentence that includes up to 90 days in jail, eight hours of community service, and/or a substantial fine. There is no parole on suspended sentences, and simply being charged with verbal assault may impact your ability to find work or secure housing if the background check reveals the assault charge.
For example, a person charged with felony verbal assault in Illinois is liable to fines of up to $25,000 and may spend five to seven years in prison. In Florida, verbal assault is defined under the interim criminal statute 784.3, which is specifically for the prosecution of verbal threats against another. This statute holds that "a criminal threat consists of the intentional threat, either by word or act, to do violence to a person and with the apparent ability to carry out the threat, which causes a well-founded fear in the victim that such violence is imminent." A conviction carries a fine of up to $10,000 and a prison term of up to five years.
In Texas, a verbal assault charge is punishable by up to 180 days in jail, a fine of $200, or both. Even the least severe verbal assault charge in Texas could get you two years in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
In New York, verbal assault is defined as "knowingly causing physical injury to another person" and is punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of about $1,000.
In California, the penalty for verbal threats is also strictly defined under the penal code, which holds that it is a violation of California law (sections 422) to threaten violence to the person of another, or to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another, with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat. In other words, an individual cannot be charged with a verbal assault penalty unless the person threatened with violence actually believes that the threat is serious and real. In that case, he or she can be held as guilty of "making criminal threats of violence" and is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of $400. The sentencing guideline for this type of offense is three months to a year in jail, along with a fine of up to $1,000. If the verbal threat is especially egregious, however, the penal code fines the court with the option to impose a prison term of up to 25 years, although it is rare that a verbal assault charge would incur so much jail time in the first place.
Verbal assault vs. free speech
The interaction between verbal assault laws and the First Amendment right to freedom of speech can be ambiguous, and it’s an area that has been subject to extensive litigation. As a general rule, the First Amendment prohibits states from making laws that restrict or punish free speech, which includes most verbal communications. However, states may criminalize specific conduct, and prohibiting certain types of violent or threatening speech falls within this exception. The question of what constitutes permissible speech carries significant legal weight, and the restrictions on free speech have been criticized regularly.
In several cases, courts have found that restricting speech based on its potential to cause emotional distress is problematic under the Federal Constitution. The leading case is the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Gooding v. Wilson, where a Georgia law made it illegal to communicate "to or about any person . . . any . . . coarsely insulting, abusive or profane language." The Supreme Court ruled that the law was impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court has followed up by ruling that states cannot prohibit "true threats" which could create a reasonable fear that someone would take an unlawful action, like a threat of violence.
The Supreme Court has been reticent to develop free speech law in the area of punishable speech. In the 2003 case Virginia v. Black, the Court held that a Virginia law prohibiting cross burning with the intent to intimidate violates the First Amendment, saying that the law was unconstitutional because it was overbroad. Many courts, including the Virginia Supreme Court, held that the statute was facially invalid. The Supreme Court held that parts of the statute were valid because incitement to imminent lawless action was not protected. A concurrence, however, promised to review the case again in the future, having flagged the "danger of unintended prosecutions against groups such as the Klan or the Nazis, whose activities the First Amendment was meant to protect."
However, many states have enacted laws that go beyond the scope of the First Amendment and can be found to be facially invalid. A 1985 California law was rejected in the case Williams v. Garcetti on similar grounds. The law was made invalid because it reached beyond threatening speech toward stalking. The Governor had provided a policy instruction, however, that didn’t limit the impact of California’s law, and courts found that other statutes and policy instruction attempted to limit the effect of the law on free speech. The law was found to be unconstitutional because it unconstitutionally criminalized speech and the court couldn’t save the law by narrowly interpreting the statute.
Often, verbal assault statutes do not face these challenges because they draw a clear dividing line between protected speech and any other speech that can be made to victims. A 1971 Colorado law was found to restrict only speech specifically intended to create terror, which was permissible. Similarly, harassment laws that prohibit repetitive words or actions are usually satisfied because of their lack of ambiguity. Courts have repeatedly found harassment laws that codify "shouting fire in a theater" to be appropriate. The speech in those cases was universally recognized as not protected.
Verbal assault across jurisdictions
Verbal assault laws vary from state to state, and within different countries. Here is a look at some of the verbal assault laws across the world.
In Alabama, verbal assault is defined as the threat of physical harm to an individual. A person does not have to be contacted or physically injured for it to be considered a verbal assault. Potential penalties for a verbal assault charge can include up to one year in prison and/or a fine of $6,000.
Tenessee is one of the few states that assigns a specific statute to verbal assault. Under section 39-13-101 of the state criminal code, verbal assault is defined as intentionally or knowingly causing another person to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury or danger. This is also known as "assault by threat." Penalties for failure to comply with this law can include penalties of up to $10,000.
Although verbal assault is not a criminal act under Connecticut law, verbal viciousness or abuse expressly to harass or annoy the person at the other end can lead to legal penalties. For each offense, the penalty is a class C misdemeanor and a $500 fine.
The charge of verbal assault is often enforced in Israel. The specific statute associated with it is found under Article 192 of the Israeli penal code. Penalties for verbal assault under this law can include prison terms of between one to three years. Verbal and emotional abuse are regarded as an aggravated form of verbal assault.
Defending against a verbal assault charge
The most common defense used in verbal assault cases is to deny that the defendant made any course of malicious conduct toward the victim. If the victim brings forth a lawsuit or makes a complaint to the police, the defendant may testify that he or she simply never made any terroristic threat against the victim. To do so, he or she may have a witness who was with him or her at the time of the alleged attack, or may prove the absence of motive to make such a threat.
This defense may also take the form of an alibi, whereby he or she has an independent witness who can testify that the accused had no opportunity to make the alleged threats.
A common strategy that is used in this type of offense is to argue that the alleged threat is not credible. If he or she did not believe the threat he or she may not have felt compelled to report it to the police.
The majority of criminal cases may be won or lost at trial, but a verbal assault case is one in which the majority of cases are settled through plea bargain. Another strategy that is often used is to present a lesser charge to the court.
Cases can be resolved by entering into a deferred judgment, where the defendant enters his or her plea to the charge, but the conviction is held off for a period of time during which he or she must agree to comply with certain terms that are set by the court. Among those terms may be an agreement to attend counseling or treatment or to avoid contact with the alleged victim. If the defendant satisfactorily completes all of the conditions of the deferred judgment, the court will dismiss the charges and will not enter the guilty plea into the record .
Landmark or noteworthy cases are not as common for this offense, but there are some examples of successful defenses of verbal assault charges.
In one case, a man was accused of making terroristic threats to an estranged spouse and a neighbor. He had moved out of the couple’s marital residence, but during the course of a "telephone campaign" the man accused his spouse and a neighbor in his building of committing adultery and of misappropriating his belongings. One of the spouse’s friends had contacted the police and filed a report.
The man contended that his estranged wife was angry that the divorce was going to occur and that she was trying to frame him in order to obtain a protective order that would prevent him from accessing his own property.
Defense counsel argued that the alleged threats were merely "harmless fun" and went over-the-top and were clearly not meant to be taken seriously. The appellate court agreed, and ordered a new trial on this basis.
In another case of note, a woman was accused of making terroristic threats against a fellow member of a club. They engaged in a verbal argument over some specific item that was brought up in the club meeting, and the victim said that the accused had a knife concealed somewhere. The accused said that she did not bring a knife to the meeting and that the other woman was mistaken about this. The accused pulled out a box cutter and said if he wanted to stab her then he could. In a move that the victim claimed was meant to threaten her, he sped off and retrieved a knife from his car.
The appellate court held that the men’s statement about getting the knife was a bluff that was intended to be "clearly humorous and harmless" and did not constitute a terrorist threat.
Effects of verbal assault on victims
Verbal abuse is not only psychologically damaging, but it can also result in a lot of physical illnesses. Stress, anxiety, and depression are common problems that affect many victims of verbal assault. Often, victims of harassment develop hypertension, migraines, and digestive problems. Chronic tension in the neck and back can lead to chronic weakness in these areas, numbness, and tingling.
In an article published in The Stanford Advocate, many experts agree that verbal harassment can be psychologically damaging, and even cause psychological disorders as well. Professor Elizabeth Carll, a New York State Psychological Association fellow says that "Verbal abuse has certain operant characteristics including denigration, putdowns and blaming, the same aspects commonly associated with emotional abuse and psychological abuse." Experts believe that it can lead to real mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
A 1995 research study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that men who verbally abuse their partners are more likely to be physically violent toward them in the future. Additionally, a study by Dr. John Marshall in a Battered Women’s Syndicate found that a history of verbal abuse was more common in men who had sexually assaulted wives than men with no history of verbal abuse. These studies show a strong correlation between verbal assault and other forms of abuse.
Getting legal assistance for verbal assault
If you or someone you know is a victim of verbal assault, you should seek legal advice. In Utah, you can seek a civil domestic violence protective order for which verbal assault is a qualifying category. Another option is a stalking protective order for which verbal assault would fall under the category of stalking by telephone. Both of these protective orders are of the civil variety, which means they are handled in the district court. For either of these protective orders to be entered by the court, the proper paperwork must be filed at your local district courthouse. All courthouses have self-help offices that can help you fill out the proper paperwork.
After you fill out an Affidavit and Order, file it with your local district court clerk and pay the filing fee. An ex parte hearing will be held in front of a judge if you have completed the paperwork correctly. This will determine if the temporary protective order is granted until the permanent protective order hearing date can be rescheduled. It is very important that you attend the ex parte hearing scheduled by the court. If you do not attend, the court may deny your request for a protective order. If you move forward to the permanent protective order hearing , the judge who hears your case will decide whether or not the protective order will be granted. The defendant is not entitled to be present at the ex parte hearing, but the defendant is present at the permanent protective order hearing. If the defendant violates the protective order, the police can be called to arrest him or her. Once the defendant has been arrested, the case is prosecuted by the state, and the victim does not control the case. The biggest advantage of a protective order is that if it is violated, the police can arrest the defendant, and the matter is prosecuted without the victim having to testify in court.
It is possible for a victim of a verbal assault to simply ignore the assailant or block them on social media or his or her cell phone. Essentially, if a verbal assault is harmless and does not cause fear in the victim, then the appropriate action is to document the incident and move on. If the verbal assault is more severe, then the victim has two options. The victim can attempt to have the assailant charged with a crime or file for and obtain either a civil protection order or a stalking protective order through civil court.