So You Like To Swallow...
Ranch dressing? Some news out of Wheaton, Illinois, which gives a whole new meaning to the term "creamy ranch":
A high school student is facing criminal charges after school officials say he ejaculated into the cafeteria salad dressing.Marco Castro, 17, was charged with one count each of attempted aggravated battery and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors, Wheaton police said.
Castro is accused of spiking a container of cafeteria salad dressing at Wheaton North High School with his own semen last week.
Castro's mistake: he whacked off into the RANCH dressing. Had he done it to the bleu cheese, no one would have been the wiser.
Some practice questions for anyone studying for a Crim Law final:
1. Assuming the doctored salad dressing was eaten, is Castro guilty of battery?2. If you are Castro's defense lawyer, what possible defenses would you want to explore with your client?
3. What additional facts would you need to know about each possible defense?
Please place your answers in the comments. Thanks.
Update: This disturbing episode has tort law implications, too. How educational!
Student Faces Charges In Semen-In-Dressing Case [CBS2 (Chicago) via Drudge Report (of course)]
Student Accused Of Putting Bodily Fluids In Food [CBS2 (Chicago)]
Raunch Dressing: llinois H.S. senior to be charged for de-fouling creamy condiment [The Smoking Gun]
Comments
Professor David Crump of the University of Houston Law Center is somewhat infamously the author of a book featuring a pizza delivery boy who masturbates on a pizza and then later calls the customer and informs him of what he's done and that he has AIDS. He did add the special sauce, but didn't actually have AIDS. The question, after this beautiful bit had been excerpted into our half assed photocopied ego trip maskerading as a crim law book was - is there a traditional common law crime here?
That was the second weirdest day of his class. The weirdest was when we covered a questionable Texas appellate decision wherein a conviction for murder had been overturned. The defendant had threatened in front of witnesses to the victim that he would "cut off your cock and balls" and this in fact happened. Crump, naturally, deadpanned the phrase "cock and balls" into class discussion at least five times with no seeming humor or awareness that this might be...interesting. I ended the class hunched over in pain, my eyes red from unshed tears of hilarity, and my abdominal muscles screaming from the exertion required to not completely lose my shit and laugh maniacally until they carted me away in a white jacket.
Yes, ladies, I do know what it feels like to give birth now.
(Second favorite professor, nevertheless.)
Posted by: Anonymous #37 | December 16, 2006 11:11 PM
I'd try the INSANITY defense. What was the kid thinking???
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2006 05:03 PM
The question that must be answered first is whether the salad eaters swallowed?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 03:44 AM
What was Castro's mens rea? Even if he doesn't meet the standards for invoking insanity, he could argue that he didn't have the required state of mind for battery.
Maybe he didn't intend for anyone to actually eat the dressing. Maybe he just "got off" - hehe - on the idea of his stuff being IN the dressing.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 08:45 AM
What are the elements of battery in that jurisdiction? In some states there are specific provisions re: battery and bodily fluids.
But if it's just a general "harmful or offensive contact" standard, you could argue: (1) not harmful (no showing that anyone was injured or got a disease) and (2) how "offensive" could it be, since some people voluntarily swallow this substance?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 09:39 AM
Well, one defense could be, "Only Susie ate the dressing, and it's nothing she hasn't had before."
Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 02:22 PM