FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

59.1 Mental State Of Victim

    59.1.1 Victim's Mental State: Requirement That Victim Actually Be Frightened To Prove Assault
    59.1.2 Crimes Involving Victim’s Fear As Element: Fear Must Be Reasonable

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 59

PRACTICE NOTE: For example, in Oregon the crime of menacing requires the defendant to intentionally attempt to place another person in fear. (UNIFORM CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (OREGON), UCrJI 1410 [Menacing] (Oregon State Bar, 1998 ).) This crime has been interpreted to require a determination as to "whether a reasonable person would have been placed in fear...." (UNIFORM CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (OREGON), UCrJI 1410, comment [Menacing] (Oregon State Bar, 1998).) Note, however, that proof of actual fear on the part of the victim is not required contrary to the normal requirement in other crimes such as robbery.

    Another crime to which the reasonable fear test may apply includes stalking. For example, in Oregon it must be proven that: "It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed/coerced by the contact...." (UNIFORM CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (OREGON), UCrJI § 1414, [Stalking] (Oregon State Bar, 2000).)

    Certain crimes require an element of fear on the part of the victim. Normally, the determination of the fear element requires a determination that the fear be objectively reasonable. (See e.g., Robinson v. U.S. (DC App. 1986) 506 A2d 572, 575.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 101.1.5.9 [Rape/Forcible Sex Crime: Defense Theory That Force Cannot Be Based Solely On The Victim’s Subjective Reaction].

    See also FORECITE National™ 101.6.1 [Indecent Exposure: Links To Other Sources].