Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Watson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 10, 2009No. 05-CM-1357Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchwelb, Senior Judge

De minimis non curat lex1

I

In my opinion, Watson’s conduct as found by the judge — -as distinguished from the scenario described by the wife, but rejected by the court as unproved — was, at most, a de minimis and inconsequential violation of the assault statute. Surely husbands, wives, lovers and friends have snatched or grabbed objects from each other on innumerable occasions without the notion occurring to anyone that a crime has been committed or that the criminal justice system should become involved. Cf. State v. Cabana, 315 N.J.Super. 84, 716 A.2d 576, 578 (1997), aff’d, 318 N.J.Super.…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. State v. HoffmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  3. Beausoliel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  4. Comber v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Allen v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API