Gnadt v. Com., 1921-96-4

Decision Date14 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 1921-96-4,1921-96-4
Citation27 Va.App. 148,497 S.E.2d 887
PartiesCharlton E. GNADT, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals

Casey R. Stevens (Farmer & Stevens, on brief), Occoquan, for appellant.

Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: WILLIS, ANNUNZIATA and BUMGARDNER, JJ.

BUMGARDNER, Judge.

Charlton E. Gnadt, Jr. was charged with sexual battery in violation of Code § 18.2-67.4. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, the court granted a motion to strike the charge of sexual battery and amended the charge to simple assault. The defendant objected, contending that assault and battery was not a lesser-included offense of the original charge and that the evidence was insufficient to prove lack of consent. The court overruled the objection and convicted the defendant of assault and battery. Finding that assault and battery is a lesser-included offense of the original charge of sexual battery and that the touching was without consent, we affirm.

The victim, Pvt. Shawn A. Knowles, had been charged with driving under the influence. He appeared for the trial in the general district court. Charlton E. Gnadt, Jr. was the Assistant Commonwealth's attorney prosecuting Knowles. After discussing a plea agreement, Gnadt told Knowles to accompany him to his office. When they arrived, Gnadt told Knowles that he needed to search him for weapons. He had Knowles take off his military jacket and stand against the wall. After an initial pat-down search, Gnadt told Knowles to unfasten his pants. Knowles complied. Gnadt placed his hands inside Knowles' pants but outside his underwear. He rubbed his hands across Knowles' buttocks and then around front over his genitals. Gnadt then placed his hands inside Knowles' underwear and again moved them over his buttocks and around front, touching his genitals. Knowles said nothing and did not resist or protest in any way. He testified that he was nervous, scared, and felt he would be in more trouble if he resisted.

An assault and battery is an unlawful touching of another. It is not necessary that the touching result in injury to the person. Whether a touching is a battery depends on the intent of the actor, not on the force applied. Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 140 S.E. 114 (1927). For a touching to be a crime, it must be unlawful. If the victim consents to the touching, the touching is not unlawful and therefore not a battery. If the touching exceeds the scope of the consent given, the touching is not consensual and thus is unlawful. If consent is coerced or obtained by fraud, the touching is unlawful. Banovitch v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 210, 83 S.E.2d 369 (1954).

A touching may also be justified or excused. When it is, the touching is not unlawful and therefore not a battery. A police officer does not commit a battery when he touches someone appropriately to make an arrest. An unlawful arrest or an arrest utilizing excessive force is a battery because that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Kalantar v. Lufthansa German Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 16, 2005
    ...though, "a police officer does not commit a battery when he touches someone appropriately to make an arrest," Gnadt v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 148, 497 S.E.2d 887, 888 (1998), such as by placing handcuffs on the arrestee. Kalantar does not allege that the arresting officers mishandled him ......
  • McCracken v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2002
    ...excessive force is a battery because that touching is not justified or excused and therefore is unlawful." Gnadt v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 148, 151, 497 S.E.2d 887, 888 (1998). The officers in this case used reasonable force to subdue the defendant when he refused to submit. The deputies......
  • Tatum v. Shoemaker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • March 16, 2012
    ...that police officers are legally justified in using reasonable force to execute their lawful duties."); Gnadt v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 148, 151, 497 S.E. 2d 887, 888 (1998) ("A police officer does not commit a battery when he touches someone appropriately to make an arrest."); Davidson ......
  • Warner v. Centra Health Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • November 30, 2020
    ...that police officers are legally justified in using reasonable force to execute their lawful duties."). But see Gnadt v. Commonwealth , 27 Va.App. 148, 497 S.E.2d 887, 888 (1998) ("[A]n arrest utilizing excessive force is a battery because that touching is not justified or excused and there......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT