If you accidently spit at someone during an argument, can you be arrested for battery?

Question

Here's one of those Socratic questions they like to bug you lawyers with at law school: Person A is angry at Person B and tries to get him to fight. He gets in his face and starts yelling "p*ssy!" Person A then licks his lips intentionally so that when he says the explosive consonent of "p", the spittle peppers the face of Person B. Has Person A committed battery? If the police come, will there be an arrest? What if Person B hits Person A as a result; will both then be arrested?

Answer 1

To satisfy battery / assault it requires the physical act (contact) and mental element (intention). Since intention is lacking, person A hasn't committed assault.

Person B could possibly be arrested for assault though; in that the force used exceeded what was necessary as an act of self defence. Person B could and should have just walked away.  

Answer 2

yes to all, but B will not be convicted.

Answer 3

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think person A would have technically committed battery.  If person B were to hit Person A,  Person B would be arrested (granted person A doesn't hit back)  

Answer 4

No....there was no physical contact. If person B hits Person A they will be arrested for assaut because they initiated contanct.

Answer 5

Battery of A upon B:

There is no criminal battery.  Which, I suppose, is what you are asking.  In criminal law, battery is an act (actus reus) with intent (mens rea) to commit a harmful contact (physical violence) or offensive contact with the person of another.  The spit could be sufficient to establish contact because it was under the control of the actor.  Where this fails to meet the threshold for criminal battery is that intent.  It was the actor's intent to say the word P*ssy and the spittle that flew from his lips was part and parcel of that statement.  Thus, it was not A's conscious object to spit upon B.  

The Mens Rea for criminal battery requires the intent level of purposely or knowingly.  Anything less would be an accidental touching and we do not punish for that.  

Battery of B upon A/Self Defense

On the other hand, B's punching A could constitute battery.  His punch is intentional and, if he hits the intended target, there is, obviously contact that would be harmful.  The question is justification.  A person is justified to use reasonable force to subdue an immediate threat of harm to himself.  Certainly, B would have reasonably perceived an immediate threat to him when A spat on him (and we won't even get into if B knew A had something like AIDS).  However, the threat was that of spit and B punched.  Was it necessary for B to punch A to eliminate the threat OR would B grabbing A's hand have sufficiently subdued the threat.  That will be for a Court to decide.