Upon thoroughly reading the charging document, I cannot cease to be
amazed that he was charged with assault. There may be some
substantiation to the weapons charge. I do find an exception to that in
the statute- that, paraphrasing, CR-4-101(b)- an exception is made if
the court finds that the person is carrying the weapon as a REASONABLE
precaution against apprehended danger. Has he been attacked or
threatened before? Does he have a credible reason to be in fear where it
would be reasonable for him to carry a weapon? Or, do the courts
consider current affairs and crime trends as sufficient to qualify for
the exception? Is the Walmart or area in which he traveled to/from
Walmart a high crime/high risk area? Yes to any of these may be cause
for a not guilty on the weapons charges.
As far as the assault, that is preposterous. There is more exculpatory
information in the charging document then there is incriminating. #1,
the " victim" says, according to quote in the charging document,
that he went in to CONFRONT Dalton. WHY? What is the purpose of
CONFRONTING him? The word CONFRONT implies intent, that he was looking
for revenge or trouble, to fight. Note he didn't say "talk"
"discuss" " see what the problem was" he said
"CONFRONT". An attorney should tear him up on the stand
over this. as in " just what was your intent on going in Walmart?"
" Why didn't you just leave?" " or call the police"? "
You went in there to exact revenge, didn't you?" " Your wife just
challenged your manhood by complaining of an affront to her and you just
had to go assert it to her didn't you?"
#2, Now the witness statement, from a third party, unbiased independent
wife says " would go get husband, who would" "KICK DALTON'S
Husband shows up gets " three feet from Dalton"
Husband tells him he " could get smart with him"
Husband " took a STEP TOWARDS Dalton" and " then Dalton pulled
#3 Husband, according to him, admits starting the confrontation by
calling Dalton a " fat ****", hardly an invitation to rationally
In short, Dalton was told the husband would kick his ass. The husband
showed up, using hostile words. The husband took a step towards Dalton.
That is an assault on the husband's part. Dalton would reasonably fear
that he was about to be harmed by husband by virtue of the precursor
statements, the derogatory challenge, and the step towards Dalton. In
fact, it is only the knife that prevents Dalton from being physically
attacked by the husband. An assault is made when intent is stated or
inferred and the assailant has the apparent means and intent to
immediately carry it out, as we do here in this case.
If it goes to trial YOU need to summons the Husband, the wife, the
Trooper, and the Walmart employee who gave the witness statement. YOU
need to summons them, because if they don't put them on the stand, you
can't call them to testify and you need their testimony.
The Walmart employee is the most crucial. Courts love independent
witnesses who have no stake in it, no alliance with either of the