Assault

Terrorizing vs. Menacing

The difference between terrorizing and menacing is difficult to understand. Both involve putting someone in fear of being hurt or killed and both involve an attempt to actually follow through on that fear.

The main difference is whether or not you're actually capable of following through on that threat. If you're able to injure someone or scare them, but can't back it up, you'll likely be charged with menacing.

An example helps explain this. Think back to that bully who used to threaten your lunch money when you were young. While they may have been terrifying at first, they probably couldn't really deliver on those threats once you challenged them (they didn't want detention any more than you did). Since they weren't capable of carrying out their threats, menacing (and not terrorizing) was most likely what happened.

But sometimes conduct can be both. For example, if you hold an unloaded gun to someone's head, you could be charged with both menacing and terrorizing.

Terrorizing could also happen if a person causes the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or causes a serious disruption or public inconvenience.

Penalties in North Dakota

Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor and carries a max penalty of penalty of 360 days in jail and a $3,000 fine.

Terrorizing in North Dakota is a Class C felony and carries a max penalty of 5 years in prison and $10,000 fine.

Defenses

Since assault is a crime that may result in either a felony or misdemeanor charge depending on the circumstances, it’s important to understand North Dakota law and how it may apply to your case. There are various assault charges (physical violence, verbal threats, etc.) and every case differs depending on its facts.

Mistaken Identity

It is common for a person's memory to be unreliable. In a situation like this, the person involved will be emotional and their memory may become distorted. The details of the assault provided by the alleged victim are also sometimes inaccurate. This can lead to the accuser being mistaken. The person may "look like" their assailant due to their race or if they were in the area when the assault occurred.

Because the victim saw your face when the attack took place, they may become confused and involve you in the assault. You may be able to challenge your charge if it was a mistaken identity and you can rely on Ringstrom DeKrey to help develop this defense and help gather the evidence you need to clear your name.

Accuser’s Credibility

Attacking the accuser's credibility implies that someone is lying and their story is false. An attorney uses this defense to attack inconsistencies in testimony. By presenting contrary evidence, the attorney raises doubts.

Cases can be dismissed when you question the credibility of an accuser. As part of the credibility defense strategy, your attorney may research the victim's background or character. This could call into question the person’s credibility and whether they are telling the truth about the incident.

Alibi

In an alibi defense, evidence can be presented that you were nowhere near the alleged victim at the time of the assault. As an example, there are witnesses at the movies who remember you, or coworkers at work who can verify your attendance.

In most cases, the location is unimportant. What’s important is that you can back up your claim that you were nowhere near the victim when the attack happened. You'll need to show proof of your presence, such as movie ticket stubs or coworkers who were witness to your presence.

Affirmative Defense

An affirmative defense acknowledges that you did commit the crime, but that your actions were not a criminal act. Consent and self-defense are two examples of an affirmative defense.

Consent

If both parties consented to an activity, it is not deemed unlawful or a crime. As an example, consider a boxing match between two people in which one boxer receives unanticipated injuries and attempts to label it an attack. Because both parties agreed to participate in the bout, neither may accuse the other of assault.

Consent is a difficult defense to use. Your Ringstrom DeKrey attorney will go over your alternatives and the proof required to pursue this type of defense tactic.

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a popular defense strategy employed in assault situations. This defense seeks to demonstrate that you defended yourself against the accuser's actions. In this case, you must demonstrate that your behavior was the result of their activities. Meaning your acts were solely to protect yourself from damage.

This tactic can also be used to defend property or another person.

In addition, if the other party endangered your property, you are not guilty of assault. The property defense is commonly employed when someone breaks into your home and you must protect yourself.