QUESTION
Is it true that if someone is found not guilty for an assault that he is not liable for a civil assault?
Asked on Oct 04th, 2011 on Criminal Law - Oregon
More details to this question:
If an individual is found not guilty of the crime of assault, he cannot be found liable for a civil assault.
38 ANSWERS
No, that is not true.
Answered on Jun 03rd, 2013 at 1:38 AM
Family Attorney serving Traverse City, MI
at
Craig W. Elhart, PC
Update Your Profile
No.
Answered on Jun 03rd, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Criminal Law Attorney serving Howell, MI
at
Law Offices of Jules N. Fiani
Update Your Profile
No.
Answered on Jun 03rd, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Criminal Law Attorney serving Los Angeles, CA
at
Law Office of Edward J. Blum
Update Your Profile
No.
Answered on Jun 03rd, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Jacob P. Sartz
No, that is not true. The burden of proof for a criminal charge is higher than a civil case. Simply because a person is acquitted or has their criminal case dismissed does not mean that they are immune from potential civil liability. Obviously, it is harder to prove a civil case though, if there is no evidence to result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. A classic illustration are the O.J. Simpson murder-civil/wrongful death cases from the late 90's.
Answered on Nov 02nd, 2011 at 12:45 PM
3 Awards
They can still sue you civilly, but being found NG makes it much much harder.
Answered on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Appellate Practice Attorney serving Clinton Township, MI
at
Thomas J. Tomko, Attorney at Law
Update Your Profile
Thank you for your inquiry Your information is not correct. Civil and criminal are two different things. One does not preclude the other.
Answered on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
2 Awards
Untrue. The burden of proof is far lower in a civil case.
Answered on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
3 Awards
no, there are different levels of proof necessary civil case can proceed even if Not Guilty or Dismissed
Answered on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Personal Injury Attorney serving New York, NY
at
Rothstein Law PLLC
Update Your Profile
Not true because the criminal case has a higher burden of proof.
Answered on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Drunk Driving Attorney serving Spencer, MA
at
Law Office of Ernest T. Biando LLC
Update Your Profile
No it is not true-both courts are different in that criminal and civil have there own burden of proof-criminal is "reasonable doubt" whereas civil is "more likely than not" or preponderance of the evidence.
Answered on Oct 12th, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Not true. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a civil case is a far less - by a preponderance of evidence. So if there was not enough evidence to convict of a crime, a jury could still find civil liability.
Answered on Oct 07th, 2011 at 1:20 PM
It would be the other way around because there is a higher standard of proof in a criminal case than in a civil case. One may fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but still be able to prove to a preponderance of the evidence.
Answered on Oct 07th, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Samuel H. Harrison
False. Civil and criminal cases have a different burden of proof. In a criminal case, the state has to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the plaintiff only has to prove his caseby a preponderance of the evidence. Imagine the scales of justice. In a criminal case the state has to tip the scale almost all the way down to win. Ina civil case the plaintiff only has to make the scale tip slightly in his favor to win.
Answered on Oct 07th, 2011 at 9:32 AM
A person found not guilty of a crime (assault in this case) is still liable in a civil court. Just look at what happened to OJ. The standard of proof in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case. Because of this a person could be found not guilty and in the civil case be liable for the damages.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Charlotte, NC
at
The Olsinski Law Firm, PLLC
Update Your Profile
That is factually incorrect. There are two different burdens of proof in criminal and civil matters. The easiest example is OJ Simpson, found not guilty in criminal and was found liable in Civil court and had to pay damages.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:33 PM
Michael J. Breczinski
No that is not true the civil case has a lower burden of proof than a criminal case. O.J.Simpson was found not guilty of killing his wife but the civil case still found he was responsible and he owed her estate a lot of money.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:21 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Birmingham, AL
at
The Harris Firm, LLC
Update Your Profile
That is not true. They are two different trials with different standards of proof. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement for a criminal conviction is a much higher standard than the "preponderance of the evidence" requirement of a civil trial. Basically, to win a civil trial, a party just has to show that it's "more likely than not" that the other side is at fault, not that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is why O.J. Simpson could be found "not guilty" of murder, but the victims' families still won a wrongful death case in civil court.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Small Businesses Attorney serving Livonia, MI
at
Klisz Law Office, PLLC
Update Your Profile
Not True at all. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence (tipping the scales)
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Steven D. Dunnings
He can still be liable for assault.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Civil Litigation Attorney serving Kansas City, MO
at
The Unger Law Firm LLC
Update Your Profile
That is not true. The elements required to prove criminal assault are different than those for proving assault under a civil standard as is the burden of proof.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:54 PM
2 Awards
No. See O.J. Simpson case for that scenario. He won the criminal case but due to the burden of proof in the civil case being lowered he lost the civil case.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Theresa Suzanne Hofmeister
That's not true, criminal cases and civil cases have different standards of proof - so you can get seemingly-contradictory results. Famous case in point, OJ Simpson, he was acquitted of murder in the criminal case but found liable for wrongful death in the civil case.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:26 PM
Adoptions Attorney serving Lansing, MI
at
Austin Legal Services, PLC
Update Your Profile
No, that is not true. Criminal proceedings have the burden of "guilt beyond all reasonable doubt" which is the highest standard there is. Civil standard of proof is much lower. It is a preponderance of the evidence which means more likely than not (think of it as a 51/49 balancing test). Just because the proof could not be met on the higher standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, does not mean that the lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence could not be met.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Bankruptcy Attorney serving Huntington Beach, CA
at
The English Law Firm
Update Your Profile
No, that is untrue. Civil and criminal courts have different standards of proof. You might not be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the criminal standard, but you could still be found liable under a civil standard, which is "preponderance of the evidence."
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Drug Charges Attorney serving Houston, TX
at
Cynthia Henley
Update Your Profile
That is not true. The burden of proof on a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. So, a jury could find that the evidence was insufficient to meet that high burden. However, the burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence - the slight tilting of the scales in favor of one party - a significantly lesser burden. A person can be found to be civilly liable despite a not guilty verdict.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:17 PM
Theodore W. Robinson
No, that is not exactly true. In fact, its the reverse. If a person is found guilty of criminal assault, then the civil assaulthas basically been proven. However, many times when civil assault issued for, it is often charged as a negligent assault so theassaulter's insurance company will pick up coverage and payon the claim. Whereas, when it is a purposeful criminal assault, it can't be negligentunless it is charged that way criminally and then the insurance company is off the hook for coverage on the claim. Either way, if the civil assault is charged, and then the criminal assault is proven and the person is convicted, it doesn't let him/her off the hook for the civil claim against him/her.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Roseville, CA
at
Chastaine | Jones
Update Your Profile
That is not correct. Think of OJ Simpson. Won criminal trial but lost the civil trial. The burden of proof is far less in a civil case.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Wrong. Look at OJ Simpson, who won the criminal case but lost the civil. Civil has a lower burden of proof.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Montrose, NY
at
Law Office of Jared Altman
Update Your Profile
No, that is not true. The burden of proof in a criminal case to prove guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt but it only takes a fair preponderance of the credible evidence to establish civil liability.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Orange, CA
at
Law Office of Joe Dane
Update Your Profile
They absolutely can be sued in civil court, even if found not guilty in criminal court. OJ Simpson is a perfect example. He was found not guilty of murder in the criminal case, but found civilly liable for wrongful death in civil court. The two systems have different burdens of proof and different theories of liability.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Drug Crimes Attorney serving Philadelphia, PA
at
Laguzzi Law, P.C.
Update Your Profile
Not necessarily. Since the standard in civil cases is lower than a criminal case then he could still be liable civilly. However, the not guilty verdict will help.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Bankruptcy & Debt Attorney serving North Bergen, NJ
at
Offices of Lazaro Carvajal
Update Your Profile
Not necassarily true. First, crimianl assault is prosecured by the State in criminl court with a higher burden of proof (Beynd a reasonable doubt). The civil ssault is a tort prosecuted by a personal inury lawyer and subejct to a lower standard (perponderence of the evidence). It certainly is possible to be found not guilty in criminal court and be held liable for the same event in civil trial.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Bankruptcy Attorney serving Federal Way, WA
at
Freeborn Law Offices P.S.
Update Your Profile
No, that is not true. The burden in a criminal case is much higher. Case in point: perhaps you remember the OJ Simpson case: he was found "not guilty" in a criminal case, but in a civil case he was found to be liable and had to pay lots of money in damages. The burden is higher in a criminal case because, if convicted, the person can go to jail or prison. In a civil case, if found liable, the person will not go to jail. The only thing that a judge can impose is a financial award, which can be quite substantial. Another example is the Casey Anthony case. She was found not guilty in a criminal case, but there are individuals pursuing her civilly.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Personal Injury Attorney serving Las Vegas, NV
at
James E. Smith, LTD
Update Your Profile
Not true. Look at OJ Simpson. Innocent in the criminal case of murder but liable in the wrongful death case later. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case than it is in a criminal case so it's easier to prove civil assault than criminal assault.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Appellate Attorney serving University Place, WA
at
Baner and Baner Law Firm
Update Your Profile
That is not a true statement. The burden of proof is different. As far as I am aware, attorneys generally do not accept assault cases unless there is substantial damage involved.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Civil Practice Attorney serving Encinitas, CA
at
Law Offices of Ramona R. Hallam
Update Your Profile
Absolutely false. Hearkening back to the O.J. Simpson trial where O.J. was acquitted (found not guilty) of murder charges but then convicted in a civil trial, yes, a civil action can still go forward. A person can be found civilly liable because the burden of proof is less than in a criminal trial. A civil trial is a trial for money, whereas a criminal trial is a trial to impose penal sanctions [and monetary restitution and fines if ordered]. An injured person or their heir may file a civil action. The District Attorney may file a criminal action.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Actually, because the standard of proof in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), it is possible to be liable for an assault in a civil case even though you were found not guilty in the criminal case. In short, the acquittal in the criminal case establish shows that the assault cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it may be true that the assault CAN be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson case. He was acquitted by the jury in the criminal case, but found liable in the subsequent civil case, for exactly the reasons above.
Answered on Oct 06th, 2011 at 1:59 PM