MCL § 750.86 – Assault with intent to maim
Table of Contents
Code Details
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
750.86 Assault with intent to maim.
Sec. 86.
Assault with intent to maim—Any person who shall assault another with intent to maim or disfigure his person by cutting out or maiming the tongue, putting out or destroying an eye, cutting or tearing off an ear, cutting or slitting or mutilating the nose or lips or cutting off or disabling a limb, organ or member, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years or by fine of not more than 5,000 dollars.
MCL § 750.86 Summary
This section of the Michigan Penal Code defines and criminalizes the act of assaulting another individual with the specific intention to cause severe and permanent bodily harm or disfigurement. The statute outlines several explicit examples of such intent, including cutting out or crippling the tongue, blinding or destroying an eye, severing or tearing off an ear, cutting, slitting, or mutilating the nose or lips, or cutting off or disabling any limb, organ, or member of the body. Someone found guilty of this offense faces a felony charge, which can result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years or a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The law applies to any person who commits such an assault with the specified intent.
Purpose of MCL § 750.86
The legislative aim behind this particular Michigan Penal Code section is to staunchly protect individuals from specific, malicious acts of extreme violence that target permanent disfigurement or severe bodily impairment. This law reflects society’s strong condemnation of intentional acts designed to inflict lasting physical damage, such as loss of sight, speech, hearing, or use of a limb. It serves a critical deterrent function, aiming to prevent individuals from carrying out such heinous acts by imposing substantial felony penalties. The statute underscores the value placed on bodily integrity and seeks to safeguard citizens from assaults that go beyond mere injury, targeting irreversible harm and the quality of life. By clearly defining and punishing these specific forms of assault, the law provides a robust legal framework to prosecute those who harbor such malevolent intent.
Real-World Example of MCL § 750.86
Consider a scenario where two individuals, Mark and John, get into a heated argument. As the altercation escalates, Mark, in a fit of rage, grabs a shard of glass and lunges at John, explicitly stating, “I’m going to make sure you never see again!” Mark then attempts to stab John’s eye. While John manages to duck, resulting in a deep laceration near his eye but not the loss of sight, Mark’s intent was clear: to put out or destroy John’s eye, a specific act enumerated in the statute.
In this situation, law enforcement would likely charge Mark under MCL § 750.86. Even though John’s eye was not permanently destroyed, Mark’s actions, coupled with his explicit statement and the weapon used, demonstrate the specific intent to “maim or disfigure his person by… putting out or destroying an eye.” The prosecution would focus on proving Mark’s intent to cause that specific type of severe injury, rather than just the actual injury inflicted. If convicted, Mark would face felony penalties, including potential imprisonment for up to 10 years.
Related Statutes
Several Michigan statutes address various forms of assault, differing based on the level of intent and the severity of the harm inflicted or intended.
- MCL § 750.81 – Assault or Assault and Battery: This is the foundational assault statute, covering simple assaults without specific intent to cause grave harm. It is a misdemeanor.
- MCL § 750.82 – Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Felonious Assault): This statute addresses assaults committed with a dangerous weapon but without the intent to commit murder or inflict great bodily harm less than murder. It is a felony.
- MCL § 750.83 – Assault with Intent to Commit Murder: A much more severe felony, this statute targets assaults where the specific intent is to kill the victim.
- MCL § 750.84 – Assault with Intent to Do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder: This felony covers assaults where the intent is to cause serious physical injury, short of murder, but not necessarily the specific disfigurement outlined in MCL § 750.86. The key distinction here is the *type* of specific intent required; § 750.86 demands intent to maim or disfigure in specific ways, while § 750.84 requires intent to cause “great bodily harm.”
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 750.86
The interpretation of this provision often hinges on the specific intent element, requiring the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause one of the enumerated maiming or disfiguring injuries.
- A significant case discussing the intent element of this statute is People v Crall, 444 Mich 464 (1994). This Michigan Supreme Court case clarified that the intent to maim or disfigure must be proven as a separate element distinct from the intent to assault. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under MCL § 750.86, the prosecution must show the defendant’s specific design to inflict one of the particular injuries listed in the statute, such as putting out an eye or cutting off a limb, and not merely a general intent to injure grievously. This case helps differentiate MCL § 750.86 from similar statutes like assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (MCL § 750.84). You can review the search results for People v. Crall on Google Scholar to learn more about its impact on interpreting intent in such cases.
Why MCL § 750.86 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
While Michigan Penal Code § 750.86 is a criminal statute, it holds significant implications for personal injury litigation. When an individual is a victim of an assault with intent to maim, they may pursue a civil claim against the perpetrator, even if the state also pursues criminal charges.
The intentional and malicious nature of an assault under this code section means it falls squarely within the realm of intentional torts, specifically battery. This distinction is crucial for several reasons:
- Basis for Civil Claim: A criminal conviction for assault with intent to maim provides strong evidence—and sometimes even establishes liability through collateral estoppel—in a subsequent civil personal injury lawsuit. The victim can sue for damages stemming from the intentional act.
- Types of Damages: Victims of such assaults often suffer catastrophic and permanent injuries. In a civil suit, they can seek compensation for:
* Medical Expenses: Including emergency care, surgeries (potentially reconstructive), ongoing therapy, and future medical needs related to the disfigurement or disability.
* Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: If the maiming prevents them from working or reduces their ability to earn a living.
* Pain and Suffering: For the severe physical agony and emotional distress endured.
* Disfigurement and Permanent Impairment: Compensation specifically for the loss of a limb, organ function, or changes to physical appearance, which significantly impact quality of life.
* Emotional Distress: The psychological trauma, anxiety, and depression that often accompany such violent and disfiguring attacks.
* Exemplary Damages: In Michigan, while true “punitive damages” are rare, exemplary damages can be awarded to compensate the victim for the humiliation, indignity, and injury to feelings caused by the malicious and intentional nature of the assault.
- Insurance Coverage Issues: Most liability insurance policies contain “intentional act” exclusions. This means a perpetrator’s homeowner’s policy or general liability policy typically will *not* cover damages arising from an intentional assault, like one committed with intent to maim. This makes identifying other avenues for recovery, such as the perpetrator’s personal assets or specific crime victim compensation funds, critical for the victim’s attorney.
- Plaintiff Strategy: Personal injury attorneys representing victims of such assaults will often leverage the criminal proceedings. A successful criminal conviction under MCL § 750.86 can simplify the liability aspect of the civil case, allowing the legal team to focus on proving the extent of the client’s damages.
- Defense Considerations: For defendants, a conviction under this statute can be devastating for their civil defense, as it strongly evidences intent. Their legal team would face a significant challenge in arguing that the injuries were accidental or unintentional.
Understanding this criminal statute is vital for personal injury practitioners because it directly impacts the legal theories, potential damages, and overall strategy in cases involving intentional and grievously injurious assaults.