By now, virtually everyone has seen the video of the minor league pitcher from the Dominican Republic throwing a baseball at the opposing team's dugout during a brawl. Julio Castillo has been charged with 4th Degree Felony Assault in Ohio. After reviewing the code, the 4th Degree Assault statute looks like a battery charge. Battery is a general intent crime, as opposed to assault, which is a specific intent crime. Had he been charged with a statute based on an assault crime, he could have pled innocent because he did not have the specific intent to hit the fan, but rather, the opposing dugout. He has very little defense here, because he clearly intended to cause an injury to another, and his intent is general, meaning that the object of his actions need not be specific.
This is reminiscent of two other interesting sports assault situations in the recent past. Marty McSorley's assault with a hockey stick and Todd Bertuzzi's vicious hit on Steve Moore were other instances where professional athletes were charged with crimes. The law treats this actions as assault because the actions of these players goes beyond the implied consent to offensive touching inherent in most sports. But Castillo's throw was different, because players don't often assault fans. The Brawl at Auburn Hills and Frank Francisco's throwing a chair into the stands when he was with the Rangers reflects recent situations. Often times, those players pled out, and got a slap on the wrist. Castillo has a different problem. If he is convicted of a felony, he will likely be deported. As a prosecutor in Ohio, would you offer him a plea deal, knowing it would be his best chance to stay in this country? How does this compare to the Brawl in Auburn Hills, or Todd Bertuzzi's hit on Steve Moore, or Milton Bradley going into the stands, or Frank Francisco throwing a chair. Should all athletes be held liable under the law, regardless of whether or not the victims are players or fans? Don't players owe a greater duty to the fans?
Comments