Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Understanding assault in the United States can be surprisingly confusing. The word gets tossed around in everyday conversation — often incorrectly — and each state defines it a little differently. But there is a core legal idea that runs through every state’s laws, and understanding it helps people know their rights, their risks, and what to do if a situation escalates.
This guide breaks it all down in plain English. No jargon. No dense law-school explanations. Just a clear, forever-relevant explainer you can rely on.
Across the U.S., assault is generally defined as intentionally causing another person to fear imminent physical harm.
A crucial point:
If someone’s actions (and sometimes words) make a reasonable person think they’re about to be hurt right now, that’s usually assault.
Intent: The person meant to act in a threatening or harmful way.
Reasonable fear: The victim actually and reasonably believed harm was about to occur.
Imminence: The threat must feel immediate, not a future “someday.”
Raising a fist as if about to punch
Pointing a weapon at someone — even if it's not fired
Lunging or rushing aggressively at another person
Threatening physical harm while moving toward someone
Assault is about the fear created, not the injury caused.
People often mix them up, but they are not the same thing.
= Threat of harm, causing fear.
= Actual physical contact that is harmful or offensive.
Think of it this way:
Assault is the swing.
Battery is the punch landing.
Some states still use the traditional distinction. Others fold both into a single “assault” statute that includes physical contact. But the idea behind them stays consistent.
Here’s where things get tricky — and where people misunderstand the law most often.
However…
Under many state laws, spoken threats may become a crime if they:
threaten serious harm, injury, or death
are specific and believable
create real, reasonable fear
suggest the threat could happen immediately
involve weapons or implied weapons
are part of a pattern (stalking, harassment, domestic abuse)
Examples of criminal threats:
“I’m going to kill you tonight.”
“I’m coming over now to beat you.”
“If you take another step, I’m going to shoot you.”
Examples that usually are not criminal:
Insults
Name-calling
Yelling
Rude comments without any immediate threat
Vague statements like “You’ll be sorry one day”
Verbal threats alone are usually not assault unless they create a genuine, immediate fear of harm.
Courts often draw on long-standing legal principles when deciding assault cases. Even though states write their own statutes, two core ideas are almost universal:
If their behavior caused fear, that may be enough.
A threat isn’t assault if a reasonable person wouldn’t take it seriously.
It’s the combination of actions, words, tone, body language, distance, and context that matters.
Assault and battery can lead to both criminal charges and civil lawsuits.
Arrest
Fines
Probation
Protective orders
Jail or (in very serious cases) prison
A victim can sue for:
medical costs
lost income
therapy
emotional distress
Civil courts use a lower standard of proof, meaning a lawsuit can succeed even if a criminal case fails.
Two people argue in a parking lot. One raises his fist and steps forward, shouting “I’m about to smash you.”
There is no contact.
This is assault.
The fist connects.
This is battery.
Someone shouts, “You’re stupid. Get lost.”
Rude? Yes. Criminal? No.
This is not assault.
Someone screams threats from across a busy street but cannot reach the other person.
Usually not assault, because there is no imminent harm.
Depending on the situation, prosecutors may add more serious charges, such as:
Domestic violence
Child abuse
Sexual assault
Stalking or harassment
Homicide, if injuries cause death
Aggravated assault, often involving weapons or severe injury
These charges carry significantly higher penalties.
Every case is unique, but the most recognized defenses include:
The defendant reasonably feared imminent harm and used proportionate force.
Same rules as self-defense, but applied to protect someone else.
Common in sports or activities where physical contact is expected.
Accidental contact or misunderstandings generally do not qualify.
Especially relevant when witnesses are confused or visibility is poor.
Because assault laws vary by state and small details matter, anyone facing:
accusations
charges
threats involving weapons
domestic or workplace situations
online threats
misunderstandings that escalated
should speak to a lawyer before talking to police.
This isn’t about evading justice — it’s about protecting the right to a fair process.
Assault = causing fear of immediate harm (no contact needed).
Battery = harmful or offensive physical contact.
Verbal threats can be illegal, but “verbal assault” is not typically a crime on its own.
States define assault differently, but the core ideas remain consistent nationwide.
Both criminal penalties and civil lawsuits are possible.
Context, intent, and immediacy matter more than exact wording.
This understanding helps people know when a situation crosses the line from rude or tense to potentially criminal — and what rights they have if it does.
👉👉 Further Reading: How Criminal Law Really Works: Inside the Principles That Shape Justice in America
Mark Sanchez has been fired by Fox Sports following his arrest over a stabbing incident in Indianapolis. The network confirmed his departure on November 7, 2025, telling The New York Post, “Mark Sanchez is no longer with the network. There will be no further comment at this time.”
The former New York Jets quarterback, 38, was hospitalized and later charged with felony battery and three misdemeanors after an altercation outside a downtown Indianapolis hotel in early October. According to police, Sanchez—who was in town to cover a Raiders-Colts game—was allegedly the aggressor in a fight with Perry Tole, a 69-year-old truck driver who ended up stabbing Sanchez in self-defence.
Court records show that on October 4, Sanchez confronted Tole, who had parked his truck in an alley near the hotel. Witnesses told police that Sanchez appeared intoxicated and “was acting erratically.” Tole claimed he was frightened for his life and used pepper spray before Sanchez allegedly lunged at him, leading the driver to stab the former NFL star several times.
Both men were hospitalized. Weeks later, prosecutors upgraded Sanchez’s charges to Level 5 felony battery, citing the seriousness of Tole’s injuries. In a statement, Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears called the confrontation “an avoidable tragedy,” saying, “What began as a disagreement should never have escalated into violence.”
Tole has since filed a civil lawsuit against Sanchez, claiming permanent disfigurement.
REATED STORIES: Marshawn Kneeland Texted Family Goodbye, Dispatch Audio Reveals
Once celebrated for leading the Jets to consecutive AFC Championship appearances, Sanchez transitioned smoothly into broadcasting after his playing career, joining Fox Sports in 2021. The news of his firing shocked colleagues and fans who had come to see him as a rising on-air talent.
“It’s been a long month for Mark as he continues to recover from serious injuries while grieving the loss of a close friend,” his brother, Nick Sanchez, said in a family statement. “While the recent news—and its timing—is understandably disappointing, our priority remains his continued healing and recovery.”
For many who followed Sanchez’s career, this moment feels like a dramatic fall from grace—a reminder that fame can unravel overnight.
Under Indiana Code § 35-42-2-1, a Level 5 felony battery applies when someone “knowingly or intentionally causes serious bodily injury” to another. It carries a potential one-to-six-year prison sentence and up to a $10,000 fine.
Attorney David P. Ring, partner at Taylor & Ring LLP, explained in Law.com that, “When multiple people are hurt in a violent altercation, investigators focus less on who suffered the worst injury and more on who initiated the threat. The initial aggressor can still face felony liability even if they were later harmed.”
That distinction will likely define the Sanchez case. Prosecutors argue that his actions instigated the confrontation, meaning self-defence may not apply—while Tole’s claim hinges on whether his response was proportionate to the threat.
For everyday readers, the takeaway is simple: being injured doesn’t automatically make you the victim. Indiana law emphasizes intent, initiation, and proportional response. If you start a fight and someone gets seriously hurt, felony charges can still follow—even if you’re the one hospitalized.
Sanchez’s preliminary hearing is scheduled for later this month. If convicted, he could face prison time, probation, or mandatory counseling. Meanwhile, Perry Tole’s civil suit seeks damages for medical costs and emotional trauma.
Regardless of the outcome, the incident underscores a broader truth: in moments of anger, even brief lapses in judgment can lead to irreversible consequences—legal, professional, and deeply personal.
“Under Indiana’s battery statutes, causing ‘serious bodily injury’ can escalate a case into a Level 5 felony – meaning the mere fact of being wounded doesn’t negate potential criminal liability if you instigated the altercation,” says Sean Hessler, founding partner of Hessler Law LLP, an Indianapolis-based criminal defence firm.
Q: Can someone face felony charges if they were also injured?
A: Yes. Indiana law focuses on intent and initiation, not who ended up hurt.
Q: What penalties apply to a Level 5 battery conviction?
A: One to six years in prison and fines up to $10,000.
Q: Does self-defence protect the truck driver?
A: Possibly. If prosecutors find Tole acted reasonably to prevent harm, his actions may be justified.
For Mark Sanchez, the consequences extend far beyond the courtroom. A once-bright broadcasting career has been cut short, leaving a cautionary tale about impulse, accountability, and the cost of a single volatile encounter. As his case moves forward, it will test not only Indiana’s self-defence laws but also public forgiveness in an era where personal conduct and professional reputation are more intertwined than ever.
Grammy-nominated rapper A$AP Rocky has been acquitted of two counts of assault after a month-long trial centered around a shooting incident in Hollywood.
The trial, which concluded in February 2025, was marked by allegations of courtroom misconduct, high-profile appearances from the defendant’s partner Rihanna, and dramatic exchanges between attorneys.
The charges stemmed from a November 2021 altercation with A$AP Rocky's former friend and fellow ASAP Mob member, Terrell Ephron, known as A$AP Relli.
The verdict, announced in front of a packed courtroom, was met with applause as Rihanna and supporters of Rocky cheered. In an emotional moment, A$AP Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, jumped over the divider to embrace Rihanna.
"Thank y'all for saving my life," Rocky said to the jury as they left the courtroom. "You're making the right decision." Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman was also present during the proceedings.
A$AP Rocky had been accused of shooting Ephron in the hand after a confrontation near The W Hotel in Hollywood. The dispute was reportedly fueled by a misunderstanding regarding a promised financial contribution for a fellow member’s funeral, which led to escalating tensions between the long-time friends.
However, the defense team, led by attorney Joe Tacopina, argued that Rocky was acting in self-defense after Ephron attacked him during the altercation.
The rapper's defense maintained that he was carrying a prop gun, used for a music video shoot with Rihanna, and that it was not capable of firing real bullets. This claim was central to the case, as Rocky would have faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted of assault with a firearm.
Tacopina claimed the weapon was a "prop gun" taken from the set of a music video, which Rocky had filmed with Rihanna.
The case was complicated by several factors, including the absence of direct forensic evidence. While Los Angeles police officers found no shooting evidence on the night of the incident, Ephron later claimed to have found shell casings at the scene.
However, no weapon was ever recovered, and the lack of forensic evidence made the prosecution’s case more challenging.
At the trial’s conclusion, Tacopina expressed relief. "This is one of the happiest days of my life," he said outside the courthouse. "We just have to leave, but bottom line is, we're grateful for the jury."
However, prosecutors continued to maintain their belief in the importance of seeking justice for all, regardless of their fame. "While today’s verdict is not the outcome we sought, we respect the jury’s decision," said Deputy District Attorney Paul Przelomiec. "Fame does not place anyone above the law."
Key testimonies in the case revolved around the credibility of Ephron, who was the sole eyewitness identifying Rocky as the shooter, and Jamel Phillips (A$AP Twelvyy), a member of the ASAP Mob who was with Rocky that night and testified that the gun was a prop.
Ephron, during his testimony, was cross-examined aggressively by Tacopina, who accused him of lying for financial gain, as Ephron had also filed a civil lawsuit against Rocky.
As the case progressed, the defense team argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, particularly with the absence of any forensic evidence or clear proof that the weapon used was real.
At one point, prosecutors attempted to introduce a plea deal, offering a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, but Rocky rejected it. The defense’s narrative focused on the lack of a weapon and the possibility that the shooting never occurred as described by Ephron.
Throughout the trial, the media’s attention was drawn to the frequent appearances of Rihanna in the courtroom, as she supported her partner. The trial itself also witnessed frequent clashes between Tacopina and prosecutor John Lewin, who traded accusations of misconduct throughout the proceedings. Despite the courtroom tensions, the trial ultimately concluded with the jury's not-guilty verdict.
In an unexpected turn, Rocky’s team had initially thought the case would hinge on the alleged misconduct of the attorneys involved. The courtroom drama between Tacopina and Lewin included accusations of violations and personal insults.
The judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold, struggled to contain the fiery exchanges. "I don’t think a jury wants to see a lawyer out of control," Tacopina remarked after the verdict, citing Lewin’s fiery objections during the trial.
Rocky did not testify in his own defense during the trial. However, his composure and the presence of his family, including Rihanna and their children, seemed to give him emotional support as he faced the intense scrutiny of the legal proceedings.
Following his acquittal, A$AP Rocky is expected to release his long-awaited solo album, headline the Rolling Loud music festival in Los Angeles, and appear in a Spike Lee film later in 2025.
The trial and acquittal of A$AP Rocky are part of a broader conversation regarding celebrity trials and the influence of fame in the legal system.
High-profile cases involving musicians, actors, and other public figures often draw media attention, raising questions about how the justice system handles individuals with significant public influence. In this instance, the presence of Rihanna throughout the trial, as well as the constant media focus on Rocky’s celebrity status, highlighted the intersection of fame and the legal process.
Historically, celebrities have had both advantages and challenges in the courtroom. The public's perception of justice can be swayed by the star power of the individuals involved, potentially influencing juror decisions and media coverage.
For A$AP Rocky, his trial became not just a legal matter but a public spectacle, with the courtroom interactions, statements from the defense, and personal drama overshadowing the legal facts at times.
Looking ahead, the future of celebrity-related legal battles will likely continue to evolve, with increased public interest and scrutiny.
The transparency of these cases, especially as they unfold in high-profile settings like Hollywood, raises important questions about fairness and impartiality in the judicial system.
A$AP Rocky’s case also serves as a reminder that regardless of fame, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. As the celebrity legal landscape continues to shift, it will be interesting to see how the public and the legal system balance the influence of fame with the principles of justice.
A former ballerina, Ashley Benefield, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Monday for the fatal shooting of her 58-year-old husband, Doug Benefield, in 2020. The case, widely known as the "Black Swan" murder case, unfolded during a custody dispute between the couple over their daughter. Benefield, 33, was convicted of manslaughter in July, reducing the original second-degree murder charge she faced. Along with her prison sentence, Benefield will serve a decade of probation and receive credit for time already served.
Ashley Benefield was found guilty of fatally shooting her husband, Doug Benefield, in September 2020. (Facebook)
Ashley Benefield, a former ballerina, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for the fatal shooting of her husband, Doug Benefield, in 2020. This high-profile case, known as the "Black Swan" murder, involved a custody dispute over their daughter and a complex trial where Benefield claimed self-defense. Despite these claims, her conviction for manslaughter revealed a darker side to the incident. Along with her sentence, Benefield will serve probation and undergo a mental health assessment due to her PTSD diagnosis. The case has deeply impacted both families, highlighting the lasting effects of domestic violence and legal battles.
Ashley Benefield was convicted for shooting her husband in their Lakewood Ranch, Florida, home on September 27, 2020. During the trial, Benefield maintained that she acted in self-defense, claiming she shot Doug after instructing him to leave her residence and after he allegedly struck her in the face.
She testified that she feared for her life and believed he was going to kill her. However, investigators found no evidence of physical abuse or injuries on Benefield, which cast doubt on her self-defense claims.
Throughout the trial, Benefield also accused Doug of psychological abuse, alleging that he poisoned her during her pregnancy, assaulted their dog, and discharged a firearm within their home. Yet, none of these allegations were corroborated, and prosecutors argued that the accusations were a ploy to gain sole custody of their daughter.
During the sentencing, Doug’s daughter, Eva Benefield, delivered an emotional victim impact statement that conveyed both her grief and anger. "I’ve waited so long to speak to her, face to face," she said. "I hope prison serves her well."
Eva further expressed her heartbreak, saying, "What hurts me the most is not the thought of not having my dad anymore because I will always have him around in spirit. What breaks my heart the most is thinking about how he found you at such a vulnerable part of his life."
The case, often referred to as the "Black Swan" murder, gained significant media attention. Ashley Benefield was once a promising ballerina, and her case drew comparisons to the iconic "Black Swan" character, symbolizing the dichotomy between innocence and darkness. Doug’s family attorney, Stephanie Murphy, referred to Benefield as "an innocent, pure White Swan," adding, "But underneath those white feathers, she’s an evil woman … She’s the Black Swan."
At her sentencing, Benefield showed a stoic demeanor as she was handed the 20-year prison term. However, a mental health assessment will be conducted upon her release, as Benefield has been diagnosed with PTSD. This assessment will occur while she serves her probation, which adds a layer of complexity to her case.
She claimed that she had experienced psychological abuse from her husband and described various traumatic incidents during their marriage, including allegations of poisoning and physical threats.
Additionally, she testified that the shooting occurred after a heated argument in which she feared for her life, believing her husband was about to kill her. The trauma of the situation, compounded by the stress and violence in her relationship, likely contributed to her PTSD diagnosis, which was acknowledged during her trial.
The fatal shooting of Doug Benefield by his wife, Ashley Benefield, is a tragic and complex case. While Benefield claimed self-defense, asserting that her husband had been abusive and threatened her, the situation highlights the devastating consequences of domestic conflict and emotional distress. The jury ultimately convicted her of manslaughter, reflecting the challenges in assessing self-defense claims in heated confrontations.
Sarah Boone, known as the "suitcase killer," has been sentenced to life in prison for the suffocation death of her boyfriend, Jorge Torres. On Monday, Judge Michael Kraynick imposed the life sentence, rejecting a request for a retrial by Boone's defense attorneys. The case, which shocked the nation, began with a tragic incident on February 24, 2020, when Boone and Torres, intoxicated, played a drunken game of hide-and-seek in their Winter Park, Florida apartment. Boone zipped Torres inside a suitcase, and he ultimately suffocated to death.
During the trial, Boone was convicted of second-degree murder in October. The case garnered widespread attention after Boone's chilling cellphone footage emerged. In the video, Torres could be heard desperately pleading, "Sarah, I can't breathe, babe," as he struggled to escape the confined suitcase. Boone coldly responded, "That's on you," and later added, "That's what you get," and "That's how I feel when you betray me." These haunting remarks were captured as Torres continued his frantic attempts to free himself.
The following day, Boone called 911 to report Torres's death, claiming that the incident was a result of a game gone wrong. "We were playing last night, and I placed him in a suitcase; it was a sort of hide-and-seek game," she explained. Sarah Boone further stated that she had lost consciousness and tried to perform CPR on Torres after realizing he had died, describing his body as "purple" and with "blood coming from his mouth."
Despite Boone's assertion that she had no intention to kill Torres and claimed self-defense due to alleged abuse, the court found her actions deliberately lethal. In a poignant moment during sentencing, Torres' daughter tearfully described her father as a "hidden gem" who was taken unjustly "by evilness," and she added, "I pray that you see his face when you see him at night."
Self-defense due to alleged abuse is a legal argument often used in cases where an individual claims their actions were a response to physical, emotional, or psychological harm inflicted by another person. In these cases, the defendant argues that they acted to protect themselves from imminent danger or further abuse. However, to be legally valid, the claim must demonstrate a reasonable belief that they were in danger and that their response was proportionate to the threat. In Sarah Boone's case, she argued that her actions were motivated by self-defense due to alleged abuse by her boyfriend, but this defense was rejected in court.
In that position, he handled all manner of serious offenses, and was privileged to represent a defendant on a First Degree Murder in 2010 in Brockton. He was able to gain a favorable verdict for that defendant of involuntary manslaughter. In 2012, he left the public defenders office to start his own practice. Since that time, he has handled first-degree murder cases in Brockton, Suffolk and Middlesex Counties. Brian says: “Every client and every case brings a new challenge in which I strive to continue to bring that zealous representation that I learned as a public defender.”
Below, he speaks about sensitive cases that revolve around rape and murder, and how he deals with them.
Being accused of a crime you did not commit can be a terrifying ordeal; what do you advise clients to do once they have hired you (or an attorney)?
First of all, clients have to understand that these cases can be a long process. Getting the right result may take time, particularly in cases with more serious allegations. I also always advise the client not to speak to anyone outside the firm about the allegations, as obvious as that advice might sound. Finally, while no lawyer worth their salt will promise a result, I can assure them I will do everything possible to exonerate them.
When you are defending a client in a sensitive case, such as rape, what three things must you remember to consider?
First, allegations such as these can be jarring for the client and their families to hear, so it’s good to prepare them for hearing such details in court prior to their first date in court. Second, the Commonwealth does not need forensic or physical evidence to proceed against someone in a case like a rape case. In fact, many times the Commonwealth doesn’t have such evidence and will proceed on just the word of the alleged victim. Lastly, the sex offender registry is a big consideration in any sex-related crime. It’s an issue that must be considered by any client considering their options prior to trial, and, in many cases, it is a non-starter for any plea negotiation.
In your state, how common is it for people to be falsely accused of crimes?
It happens more often than people would think or expect. In my career, I estimate that 30-40% of the cases I've handled were either false accusations or cases that were over-charged (for instance, where a person is charged with possession with intent to distribute on a clear personal use or possession charge).
In your opinion, what should be done to reduce this?
The American Bar Association rules on professional responsibility with respect to prosecutors state that: “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”, (see Commentary to rule 3.8). Too many prosecutors believe that they are an advocate for the State, seeking a conviction at all costs. Prosecutors who are wedded to a police investigation, rather than independently reviewing the facts to make a determination of where the evidence leads, are doing a disservice to justice. Similarly, overcharging a defendant simply to gain an advantage in plea bargaining, which happens all too often in this system, is also a disservice to justice.
With an array of experience, can you share which area of criminal law is most challenging, and why?
I would say murder cases are the toughest. The stakes are the highest; the defendant is facing a life sentence. The quality of the investigation and prosecution from beginning to end is usually better than any other type of criminal case. Trials are lengthy and involve all types of witnesses. In addition, there are usually multiple types of forensic evidence and challenging evidentiary issues that arise in these cases, such as DNA evidence, cause of death, identification, ballistics, self-defense. The attorney has to be both well-versed in the science behind these types of evidence, and able to work with necessary experts in these areas, but also knowledgeable about the state of the law on these issues.
Brian Kelley
161 Granite Avenue
Boston, MA. 02124
617-720-0019
brian@bakelleylaw.com
Whether you are accused of a misdemeanor, felony or even an administrative offense, having a quality and experienced counsel is necessary to give you peace of mind that you will achieve the best result possible. In the more than 10 years that I have been handling criminal cases throughout the courts of Massachusetts, I have zealously guarded my clients' rights and have fought tirelessly for the best result possible. I will do the same for you.
