MCL § 750.84 – Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder

Code Details

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

Exact Statute Text

MCL § 750.84 Summary

This Michigan Penal Code statute outlines the felony offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, and also includes assault by strangulation or suffocation. The law makes it a serious crime for an individual to assault another person with the specific intention of causing severe physical injury that is not fatal. It also criminalizes any assault where an individual intentionally impedes another’s breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to the neck or throat, or by blocking the nose or mouth. Both types of assaults are classified as felonies, carrying potential penalties of up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The statute further clarifies that being charged under this section does not prevent a person from facing other legal charges or punishments stemming from the same actions.

Purpose of MCL § 750.84

The legislative intent behind this particular Michigan law is primarily to protect individuals from acts of severe physical violence and to deter perpetrators from committing such crimes. By creating a specific felony offense for assault with the intent to inflict great bodily harm, the statute targets malicious attacks that aim to cause significant, non-fatal injury. This demonstrates the state’s commitment to punishing violent conduct that goes beyond simple assault but falls short of attempted murder. The inclusion of assault by strangulation or suffocation specifically addresses a particularly dangerous and often lethal form of violence, frequently occurring in domestic disputes. Recognizing the high potential for serious injury or death from impeding a person’s ability to breathe, and the challenges in proving explicit intent to kill in such cases, the legislature established strangulation/suffocation as a distinct and equally serious felony, ensuring that perpetrators of this violent act face substantial penalties.

Real-World Example of MCL § 750.84

Consider two separate scenarios illustrating how this statute applies:

Scenario 1 (Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder): During an argument at a bar, Mark becomes enraged at John. Mark intentionally punches John repeatedly in the face and head, continuing even after John has fallen to the ground. Mark’s actions cause John to suffer a broken jaw, a concussion, and several lost teeth. While Mark did not intend to kill John, his clear intent was to inflict severe, debilitating injuries. In this case, Mark could be charged under MCL § 750.84(1)(a) because he assaulted John with the specific intent to cause great bodily harm, short of murder.

Scenario 2 (Assault by strangulation or suffocation): Emily and David are in a heated argument at their home. As the argument escalates, David grabs Emily by the throat, squeezing tightly for several seconds, causing her to struggle for breath and momentarily lose consciousness. Emily recovers but is left with red marks on her neck and a hoarse voice. Even if David claims he didn’t intend to cause “great bodily harm” in the traditional sense, his intentional act of impeding Emily’s breathing by applying pressure to her throat falls squarely under MCL § 750.84(1)(b), making him guilty of assault by strangulation.

Related Statutes

Several Michigan statutes are related to or commonly referenced alongside MCL § 750.84, addressing various levels of assault and violent conduct:

• MCL § 750.81 – Assault; assault and battery; aggravated assault; domestic assault: This statute covers basic assault, assault and battery (unwanted touching), and aggravated assault (assault causing serious injury without intent to cause great bodily harm). It also includes domestic assault, which often overlaps with strangulation cases under MCL § 750.84(1)(b) when the victim is a family or household member.
• MCL § 750.83 – Assault with intent to commit murder: This is a more severe offense than MCL § 750.84(1)(a). While both involve assault with intent, this statute requires the specific intent to kill, rather than just to cause great bodily harm.
• MCL § 750.86 – Mayhem: This statute addresses assaults where the intent is to maim or disfigure, such as cutting out a tongue, putting out an eye, or slitting a nose or lip. While different in its specific intent, it aligns with MCL § 750.84 in targeting assaults designed to cause severe and lasting physical harm.
• MCL § 750.317 – Manslaughter: While not an assault statute, manslaughter is often discussed in conjunction with MCL § 750.84 in cases where an assault leads to death without the specific intent to kill, but with a high degree of recklessness or gross negligence, or during the commission of a felony.

Case Law Interpreting MCL § 750.84

Michigan courts have frequently interpreted different aspects of this statute, particularly concerning the definition of “great bodily harm” and the element of intent.

• In People v. Brown, 97 Mich. App. 154 (1980), the Michigan Court of Appeals discussed what constitutes “great bodily harm less than murder,” indicating it refers to serious physical injury of an aggravated nature. This case helps clarify the threshold for the harm intended. (Link to search result: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=People+v.+Brown+97+Mich.+App.+154)
• The element of intent is crucial. In People v. Parcha, 227 Mich. App. 236 (1997), the court reiterated that the specific intent to do great bodily harm less than murder may be inferred from the use of a dangerous weapon, the nature of the defendant’s acts, and the severity of the victim’s injuries. This provides guidance on how prosecutors can establish the requisite mental state. (Link to search result: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=People+v.+Parcha+227+Mich.+App.+236)
• For the strangulation/suffocation element, recent cases have focused on the interpretation of “intentionally impeding normal breathing or circulation.” While specific landmark appellate cases solely on the definition of “strangulation or suffocation” under MCL 750.84(2) are less numerous in public search results due to its more recent inclusion and clear definition, general principles of criminal intent apply to proving the intentional nature of the act.

Why MCL § 750.84 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Although MCL § 750.84 is a criminal statute, its implications are highly significant in personal injury litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants. When an assault falls under this statute, it typically involves an intentional act of violence that causes severe harm, moving the incident from a potential negligence claim to an intentional tort.

For plaintiffs (the victims of such assaults), a criminal conviction under MCL § 750.84 can be a powerful tool in a subsequent civil personal injury lawsuit. A criminal conviction can sometimes be used as evidence in civil court to establish that the defendant committed the assault, making it easier to prove liability for intentional torts like battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress. This means the victim can seek compensation for all damages suffered, including:

• Medical Expenses: Past and future costs for hospital stays, doctor visits, surgeries, medications, and physical therapy.
• Lost Wages: Income lost due to inability to work because of injuries, and potential loss of future earning capacity.
• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, and diminished quality of life.
• Other Damages: In some cases, depending on the specifics and the court’s discretion, exemplary damages (similar to punitive damages, though with specific restrictions in Michigan) might be sought to deter similar conduct.

For defendants, a charge or conviction under this statute presents significant challenges in civil litigation. Insurance policies typically contain “intentional act exclusions,” meaning that the defendant’s homeowner’s or liability insurance may refuse to cover the damages resulting from an intentional assault. This leaves the defendant personally responsible for any civil judgment, which can be financially devastating. Defense strategies in a civil case might involve arguing that the intent to cause great bodily harm was not present, or that the actions did not constitute strangulation as defined, even if there was a criminal conviction, although this can be an uphill battle.

Ultimately, MCL § 750.84 underscores the severe consequences of intentional acts of violence, providing avenues for both criminal prosecution and civil recourse for those who suffer serious injuries as a result.