OVERLAND PARK,KANSAS DOMESTIC BATTERY
How Is Domestic Battery Defined Under Kansas Law?
When you look at the statute on domestic battery for the state crime, it is long and difficult to understand. What it really comes down to is that a person can be found guilty or convicted of domestic battery if there is an unprivileged or unwanted touching done in a rude, angry or insulting manner. It is a quite a bit different than most people think.
Most people think that for a domestic battery, you are going to have someone with physical bodily injuries, such has a black eye or somebody got pushed down and was injured. For a first time regular standard domestic battery, this is not what usually happens. People get into an argument, someone calls the cops, and a person makes the mistake of admitting there was physical contact because they think they have not done anything wrong. In most cases, all it takes is a touch. It can be as simple as putting a finger on your wife, your husband, your significant other in a fight, and just one finger can get you a conviction.
How Serious Is A Domestic Violence Charge Taken In Kansas?
Domestic battery in Kansas is no joke. It carries with it ancillary consequences besides just having to go to court and deal with a conviction, probation or being in custody. There is a law that says if you get a conviction for a domestic battery, it impacts your rights to carry or have a firearm. It also carries with it the negative stigma associated with domestic battery. Ninety-five percent of the people that contact an attorney after being charged with domestic battery have no idea that what they did was a domestic battery. They are thinking, the common understanding is, a bloody nose, someone with a black eye, something like that. However, that is not the case. Since it is usually a bad situation already, their spouse, their ex, the girlfriend or whoever, tells everyone what you did. Then, all of a sudden, they are the bad guy because people do not understand that it was just a touch.
If you need information regarding the Laws Relating to Domestic Battery in Kansas, call the law office of Roth Davies, LLC to Request a FREE Consultation at (913) 451-9500 and get the information and legal answers you’re seeking.
When you look at the statute on domestic battery for the state crime, it is long and difficult to understand. What it really comes down to is that a person can be found guilty or convicted of domestic battery if there is an unprivileged or unwanted touching done in a rude, angry or insulting manner. It is a quite a bit different than most people think.
Most people think that for a domestic battery, you are going to have someone with physical bodily injuries, such has a black eye or somebody got pushed down and was injured. For a first time regular standard domestic battery, this is not what usually happens. People get into an argument, someone calls the cops, and a person makes the mistake of admitting there was physical contact because they think they have not done anything wrong. In most cases, all it takes is a touch. It can be as simple as putting a finger on your wife, your husband, your significant other in a fight, and just one finger can get you a conviction.
How Serious Is A Domestic Violence Charge Taken In Kansas?
Domestic battery in Kansas is no joke. It carries with it ancillary consequences besides just having to go to court and deal with a conviction, probation or being in custody. There is a law that says if you get a conviction for a domestic battery, it impacts your rights to carry or have a firearm. It also carries with it the negative stigma associated with domestic battery. Ninety-five percent of the people that contact an attorney after being charged with domestic battery have no idea that what they did was a domestic battery. They are thinking, the common understanding is, a bloody nose, someone with a black eye, something like that. However, that is not the case. Since it is usually a bad situation already, their spouse, their ex, the girlfriend or whoever, tells everyone what you did. Then, all of a sudden, they are the bad guy because people do not understand that it was just a touch.
If you need information regarding the Laws Relating to Domestic Battery in Kansas, call the law office of Roth Davies, LLC to Request a FREE Consultation at (913) 451-9500 and get the information and legal answers you’re seeking.
PUNISHMENT
How Serious Are Domestic Battery Allegations? Are They Bondable Offenses? Are There Protection Orders Placed Right Away?
When someone comes in with charges of domestic battery, usually, it is the person’s first offense for any type of crime. They are just getting ready to go down the rabbit hole of finding out how much trouble they are in.
A first time domestic battery charge is simply going to be a Class B misdemeanor. That does not sound like a big deal. “Misdemeanor – a simple thing?” However, because of so much negative stigma associated with domestic battery, and it has ancillary consequences of losing constitutional rights, every time there is domestic battery allegation and someone gets arrested it’s a big deal.
When a person gets arrested for domestic battery, which is going to happen every time, they are not going to issue a ticket. They may spend the night in jail before they can get in front of a judge, and most people are not used to being thrown in jail.
After that, when they go in front of a judge, there is a law that says they have to have seventy-two hours of no contact with the alleged victim. They are talking about a couple of days of not being able to even contact their spouse, which the idea of it sounds good. This gives them time to cool down. When they take that into the real world, people have bills they have to pay. They have work they have to go to; they have kids they have to deal with. They have all these things they have to do as a team that all of a sudden weighs on one person and the other person cannot even contact them. All of a sudden, it is on one party to do everything and they cannot even contact them to split things up or to even say, “You get the kids this day and I’ll get the kids tomorrow.”
Since the person is going to be barred from contact, because of that seventy-two hour rule, they are going to be barred from staying at the marital residence for that first seventy-two hours. This basically means they are homeless. When someone gets arrested, they never get arrested with their wallet, keys and everything ready to go. This means that when they get out of jail, they are in this huge problem because they have seventy-two hours where they cannot go home. Usually, the person will be out on bond. They will have to try to deal with that. They cannot talk to their most important partner in helping them, and they are trying to get hold of family or friends to bond them out. Then a person that is charged with this, they are going to be under bond conditions with possibly bond supervision. That means they basically have to be on probation while they are on bond. They are not going to be able to drink, they are not going to be able to have guns and they are not going to be able to stay at their regular residence for at least those seventy-two hours.
A lot of times, the judge will order just a straight no contact between the parties for an indefinite period of time. This means they might be going from talking to their wife every day to not at all and then dealing with not talking to kids for a month or two. Imagine what that does to their entire world. Therefore, although everything seems simple, what seems to be a Class B misdemeanor, it really blows up their world whenever it happens to them.
When someone comes in with charges of domestic battery, usually, it is the person’s first offense for any type of crime. They are just getting ready to go down the rabbit hole of finding out how much trouble they are in.
A first time domestic battery charge is simply going to be a Class B misdemeanor. That does not sound like a big deal. “Misdemeanor – a simple thing?” However, because of so much negative stigma associated with domestic battery, and it has ancillary consequences of losing constitutional rights, every time there is domestic battery allegation and someone gets arrested it’s a big deal.
When a person gets arrested for domestic battery, which is going to happen every time, they are not going to issue a ticket. They may spend the night in jail before they can get in front of a judge, and most people are not used to being thrown in jail.
After that, when they go in front of a judge, there is a law that says they have to have seventy-two hours of no contact with the alleged victim. They are talking about a couple of days of not being able to even contact their spouse, which the idea of it sounds good. This gives them time to cool down. When they take that into the real world, people have bills they have to pay. They have work they have to go to; they have kids they have to deal with. They have all these things they have to do as a team that all of a sudden weighs on one person and the other person cannot even contact them. All of a sudden, it is on one party to do everything and they cannot even contact them to split things up or to even say, “You get the kids this day and I’ll get the kids tomorrow.”
Since the person is going to be barred from contact, because of that seventy-two hour rule, they are going to be barred from staying at the marital residence for that first seventy-two hours. This basically means they are homeless. When someone gets arrested, they never get arrested with their wallet, keys and everything ready to go. This means that when they get out of jail, they are in this huge problem because they have seventy-two hours where they cannot go home. Usually, the person will be out on bond. They will have to try to deal with that. They cannot talk to their most important partner in helping them, and they are trying to get hold of family or friends to bond them out. Then a person that is charged with this, they are going to be under bond conditions with possibly bond supervision. That means they basically have to be on probation while they are on bond. They are not going to be able to drink, they are not going to be able to have guns and they are not going to be able to stay at their regular residence for at least those seventy-two hours.
A lot of times, the judge will order just a straight no contact between the parties for an indefinite period of time. This means they might be going from talking to their wife every day to not at all and then dealing with not talking to kids for a month or two. Imagine what that does to their entire world. Therefore, although everything seems simple, what seems to be a Class B misdemeanor, it really blows up their world whenever it happens to them.
Some parts of the disorderly conduct law are easy to understand others are a little more open to interpretation. For example, both laws have a common theme in that they criminalize the use of “fighting words.” There is not an exhaustive list of what “fighting words” means in the disorderly conduct context. When there is an ambiguous or undefined term in a law we have to look to caselaw to explain the ambiguous or undefined term. Caselaw is created when a judge rules on a specific set of facts, in other words, what the judge’s ruling is in one case defines the law for all cases after that with similar facts. There are hundreds of cases that shed light on the language of the disorderly conduct law in Kansas. Here are a few cases and what points you can draw from them to help better understand the Disorderly Conduct law.
State vs. Beck (9 Kan. App. 2d 459 (1984))
This case answered the question: Can you be guilty of disorderly conduct if the conduct took place in a private place like your own home? The court held that you can commit disorderly conduct in your own home there is no requirement that the conduct occur in public.
State vs. Polson (225 Kan. 821 (1979))
This case answered the question: Can you be guilty of disorderly conduct if only one other person was around to witness the conduct? The court held that a person can be guilty of disorderly conduct if only one person is around to witness the conduct.
Chaplinsky vs. State of New Hampshire (315 U.S. 568 (1942))
This case answered the question; Is criminalizing the use of “fighting words” an unconstitutional infringement on a person’s right to free speech under the first amendment to the United States’ Constitution? The court held, that “freedom of speech” protected by the constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
State vs. Stroble (169 Kan. 167 (1950))
This case answered the question: Does the person to whom the “fighting words” are directed at have to be offended before a person uttering the fighting words can be convicted of disorderly conduct? The court held that the disorderly conduct law does not require that the victim of the speech actually experienced the emotions listed in the offense. Further the court held that when determining whether disorderly conduct has occurred, the courts look to “the intention of the person uttering the language, the person to whom uttered, and all the surrounding facts and circumstances.
In the Matter of J.K.P. (296 P.3d 1140 (2013))
This case answered the question: Is the use of a racial slur automatically Disorderly Conduct? The court held that the yelling a racial slur by [J.K.P.] directed at the people who testified in his case, that he did use language or words—and did engage in noisy conduct—tending to reasonably arouse anger or resentment. Words that are chosen in one context may not be offensive to another person, but used in another context may be extremely offensive to another person. The court does not hold that uttering a racial slur is not a per se violation of the disorderly conduct law.
State vs. Rollins (205 Kan 432 (1970))
This case answers the question: What type of language can constitute fighting words? In this case there is a distinction made between what many people would considered political protected speech and “fighting words.” The court held that evidence that defendant used loud, profane, vulgar and insulting language in presence of United States Marine Corps recruiter and numerous other persons, that his grossly offensive taunts were directed toward the Marines, the then President of the United States, the Flag and State Bureau of Investigation, three of whose agents were present at the time, and that he threatened violence to persons of Marines, all of which caused several persons present to be visibly offended and annoyed, was sufficient to sustain conviction for disturbing the peace.
State vs. Carpenter (231 Kan 235 (1982))
This case answered the question: Is disorderly conduct a lesser included offense to Obstruction of Legal Process? The Court held that disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense to obstruction of legal process and that they do not contain the same elements.
U.S. v. McKinney (9 Fed. Appx 887 (2001))
This case helped give guidance on the use of curse words in the disorderly conduct context. In this case a defendant told a military officer to “go f*** himself.” The court held that in that context the language did not rise to the level of “fighting words,” a thus the defendant was not guilty of disorderly conduct.
State vs. Beck (9 Kan. App. 2d 459 (1984))
This case answered the question: Can you be guilty of disorderly conduct if the conduct took place in a private place like your own home? The court held that you can commit disorderly conduct in your own home there is no requirement that the conduct occur in public.
State vs. Polson (225 Kan. 821 (1979))
This case answered the question: Can you be guilty of disorderly conduct if only one other person was around to witness the conduct? The court held that a person can be guilty of disorderly conduct if only one person is around to witness the conduct.
Chaplinsky vs. State of New Hampshire (315 U.S. 568 (1942))
This case answered the question; Is criminalizing the use of “fighting words” an unconstitutional infringement on a person’s right to free speech under the first amendment to the United States’ Constitution? The court held, that “freedom of speech” protected by the constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
State vs. Stroble (169 Kan. 167 (1950))
This case answered the question: Does the person to whom the “fighting words” are directed at have to be offended before a person uttering the fighting words can be convicted of disorderly conduct? The court held that the disorderly conduct law does not require that the victim of the speech actually experienced the emotions listed in the offense. Further the court held that when determining whether disorderly conduct has occurred, the courts look to “the intention of the person uttering the language, the person to whom uttered, and all the surrounding facts and circumstances.
In the Matter of J.K.P. (296 P.3d 1140 (2013))
This case answered the question: Is the use of a racial slur automatically Disorderly Conduct? The court held that the yelling a racial slur by [J.K.P.] directed at the people who testified in his case, that he did use language or words—and did engage in noisy conduct—tending to reasonably arouse anger or resentment. Words that are chosen in one context may not be offensive to another person, but used in another context may be extremely offensive to another person. The court does not hold that uttering a racial slur is not a per se violation of the disorderly conduct law.
State vs. Rollins (205 Kan 432 (1970))
This case answers the question: What type of language can constitute fighting words? In this case there is a distinction made between what many people would considered political protected speech and “fighting words.” The court held that evidence that defendant used loud, profane, vulgar and insulting language in presence of United States Marine Corps recruiter and numerous other persons, that his grossly offensive taunts were directed toward the Marines, the then President of the United States, the Flag and State Bureau of Investigation, three of whose agents were present at the time, and that he threatened violence to persons of Marines, all of which caused several persons present to be visibly offended and annoyed, was sufficient to sustain conviction for disturbing the peace.
State vs. Carpenter (231 Kan 235 (1982))
This case answered the question: Is disorderly conduct a lesser included offense to Obstruction of Legal Process? The Court held that disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense to obstruction of legal process and that they do not contain the same elements.
U.S. v. McKinney (9 Fed. Appx 887 (2001))
This case helped give guidance on the use of curse words in the disorderly conduct context. In this case a defendant told a military officer to “go f*** himself.” The court held that in that context the language did not rise to the level of “fighting words,” a thus the defendant was not guilty of disorderly conduct.
DID YOU BREAK THE LAW?
|
EXPERIENCE COUNTS
You need an experienced Johnson County, Kansas attorney. We will tell you exactly what to do next to get the best possible outcome in your case. The quicker you get ahead of your case the better outcome you can expect. Call now for a free consultation 913.602.7288. |
CLAIM YOUR FREE CONSULTATION
The earlier you call us and begin planning your case defenses, the more options you will have to protect yourself and your freedom. Sign up for your free consultation and see how we help protect you. |
kansas municipal courts
kansas criminal chargeS & defenses
GET THE HELP YOU NEEDWithout the help of Kansas City, Kansas attorney, it is likely that your case will not go in your favor. Attorney T. Morton has the experience necessary to determine if you are being treated fairly and all know all of your options. Call now 913.602.7288
|
YOU NEED AN ATTORNEYYou need an attorney you trust to represent and advocate for you. Remember that no the other side aren't working for you, and aren't your friends. Hiring Attorney T. Morton may be the most important decision you make. Call now 913.602.7288
|
your criminal case - what to expect
WHY CLIENTS HIRE US
- PRICE - Fair and reasonable. FEES & PAYMENT PLANS
- QUALITY - We work tirelessly to deliver excellence in handling and resolving of your case, and communication.
- DELIVERY - You deserve ongoing interaction and involvement in your case. We make sure to provide you with legal services you are satisfied with.
- RELIABILITY - You will have a clear idea what to expect from us. We will earn your trust through accurate, clear, honest and caring handling of your case.
- EFFICIENCY - The timely resolution of your case is important to you and to us.
We are a Kansas City, Kansas law office and you are number one. You are experiencing a difficult time. You need answers to your questions. We will work tirelessly to help you. Attorney T. Morton, and her team, will handle your case with care and attention. Take action and call now for your consultation 913.602.7288.
We are serving Overland Park, Kansas City, Johnson County, Douglas County, Wyandotte County and all of Kansas.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
|
HOW MUCH DO WE CHARGE? Consultations are free. Thereafter, depending on the nature of your crime(s): Criminal misdemeanor typically start at $2,500 and felony typically start at $3,500. We do accept payment plans and major credit/debit cards. FEES & PAYMENT PLANS
|
WILL YOU GO TO JAIL OR TRIAL? It is possible but not likely. Most cases are resolved without a trial, and sometimes can be resolved without jail time. We prepare for trial nonetheless. You will be part of all conversations surrounding potential dismissal, deferment, trail prep, etc.
|
|
CAN YOU MEET US OUTSIDE OF OUR OFFICE? Absolutely! If you cannot meet at our office, there are a number of alternatives that can work around your location, job, etc. CALL NOW 913.602.7288.
|
WHEN SHOULD YOU GET AN ATTORNEY? Today! You are going into battle and you shouldn't do it alone or unarmed. There are critical deadlines, conversations, etc. that could make or break your case. Before you decide to accept any offers call us for a consultation. Attorney T. Morton, and team, can help guide you. Call us today @ 913.602.7288.
|
ATTORNEY T. MORTON - RATINGS, AWARDS & REVIEWS - CALL NOW 913.602.7288
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Tarishawn is an amazing Attorney. I Thank her so much for her help and for how well she explained everything. This attorney has excellent communication and responds immediately. Originally an anonymous company was going to leave me with nothing after being left stranded in states away from home. My accident turned my life upside down and was going to leave me careless. Tarishawn helper get me what I was rightfully owed! I can not say enough about how fast and professional this attorney is." - M.L. Client
"Quick response, and quality advice. She is very professional and knowledgeable!" - J.B. Client
"Thank you so much for helping me with my case and being a great attorney!" - G.S.
"I really appreciate you for your expertise and your expeditious and effective legal claim settlement management." V.S.- Injury Client
Contact Us7500 College Blvd., Suite 500
Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: 913.602.7288 Fax: 913.624.3311 Google Map Link |
Practice Areas |
Associations
|
Copyright, T.Morton 2017. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.