The Provo City Council approved a motion to amend the definition of battery at a council meeting held Jan. 27.
Battery was originally defined as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” The amendment proposed changing the definition to “intentionally or knowingly making offensive or provoking contact with another person without consent or legal justification.”
The motion was presented by Matthew Griffiths, a member of the Provo City Legal Department. Provo Legal Department public information officer Mary Ditto commented on the purpose of the proposal.
“Updating the definition helps ensure our code is intentional, distinct and provides appropriate flexibility when uncommon situations arise,” Ditto said.
According to Provo Police public information officer Janna-Lee Holland, this change would not largely affect the activity of the police.
“It’s a charging decision more than it is a policing one. It doesn’t change how officers enforce the law for assaults; it’s the end charges that are filed by the attorney’s office that become clearer with clarification of the term,” Holland said.
Casey McClellan, an attorney, commented on the clarification provided in the amended definition.
“The perpetrator has to be ‘knowing’ or ‘intentional,’ which is an important part of battery in the common law definition but isn’t expressed clearly in the previous version of the ordinance,” McClellan said.
McClellan also explained how a broadened definition of battery may have some implications.
“This ordinance gives city prosecutors a new opportunity to charge unwanted, offensive, purposeful physical contact instead of just having to rely on the state statute,” McClellan said. “It seems like they’re not planning to use it often, but they want the new ordinance available in case there’s some kind of physical contact that doesn’t meet the criteria for an assault.”
Professor Jane Mitchell at BYU Law said the new definition of battery would allow more actions to be considered battery.
“Something like pulling on someone’s hair or spitting on someone technically could be considered battery under this definition,” Mitchell said. “But I wouldn’t want someone’s life to be ruined from that, I don’t think anyone would, and this is where the discretion of lawyers and judges becomes important.”
Mitchell said she expects this city code to only be used in situations where contact that does not result in harm and is not sexual in nature, but is clearly unwanted by the victim, arises.
Ditto said that while this proposal is mainly to clarify and address certain types of conduct that are not fully captured by the assault statute, it may also lead to better safety for Provo residents.
“This amendment is not expected to cause a dramatic shift in public safety outcomes. However, it does strengthen the city’s ability to address certain conduct that may not have neatly fit within the prior assault definition,” Ditto said. “In those limited cases, the revised statute allows for accountability where it may not have previously been available, which supports overall public safety while ensuring the city’s laws are clear and appropriately tailored.”