California Supreme Court· 8/23/2001

People v. Williams

Citations

29 P.3d 197
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114
26 Cal. 4th 779
2001 Daily Journal DAR 9071
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7342
2001 Cal. LEXIS 5480

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that “the mental state for assault incorporates the language of probability, i.e., direct, natural and probable consequences”
requiring “an intentional act and actual knowledge of those facts sufficient to establish that the act by its nature will probably and directly result in the application of physical force against another”
warning shot fired in victim's vicinity met the requirements of assault
following Williams but arguing at length that it is wrongly decided
“[W]e hold that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur.”
A “defendant is only guilty of assault if he intends to commit an act which would be indictable as a battery . . . .” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Kennard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

97 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.