Is it true that if someone is found not guilty for an assault that he is not liable for a civil assault? 66 Answers as of November 04, 2011

Not true. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a civil case is a far less - by a preponderance of evidence. So if there was not enough evidence to convict of a crime, a jury could still find civil liability.

Thank you for your inquiry Your information is not correct. Civil and criminal are two different things. One does not preclude the other.

It would be the other way around because there is a higher standard of proof in a criminal case than in a civil case. One may fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but still be able to prove to a preponderance of the evidence.

That is not correct. The cases are entirely separate and require different burdens of proof. Even if acquitted on criminal charges, a civil case may proceed forward.

False. Civil and criminal cases have a different burden of proof. In a criminal case, the state has to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the plaintiff only has to prove his caseby a preponderance of the evidence. Imagine the scales of justice. In a criminal case the state has to tip the scale almost all the way down to win. Ina civil case the plaintiff only has to make the scale tip slightly in his favor to win.

No, a civil lawsuit can still be filed. As reference, remember the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson ended with an acquittal, he was then sued in a civil case for his participation in the wrongful death of his ex-wife and her friend. He was ultimately found liable for their deaths even though a criminal jury found him not guilty.

That may or may not be true. It depends on all the facts and circumstances. The burden of proof is higher in a criminal case. It is beyond a reasonable doubt ( think (90 % ). In a civil case the burden is a preponderance of the evidence ( think 51% ).

No that is not true the civil case has a lower burden of proof than a criminal case. O.J.Simpson was found not guilty of killing his wife but the civil case still found he was responsible and he owed her estate a lot of money.

A person found not guilty of a crime (assault in this case) is still liable in a civil court. Just look at what happened to OJ. The standard of proof in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case. Because of this a person could be found not guilty and in the civil case be liable for the damages.

No - criminal assault and civil assault have two different standards - however, you may be able to utilize the transcript from the criminal trial in your civil trial.

That is factually incorrect. There are two different burdens of proof in criminal and civil matters. The easiest example is OJ Simpson, found not guilty in criminal and was found liable in Civil court and had to pay damages.

There is a difference in the burden of proof between criminal and civil cases. Take the O.J. Simpson case for example. He was found not guilty of murder in his criminal case but was found to be liable for the murder in a civil case. The same could apply to your question as well.

No, if found not guilty you may also face a civil suit. Think of the OJ case.

Not True at all. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence (tipping the scales)

That is not true. They are two different trials with different standards of proof. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement for a criminal conviction is a much higher standard than the "preponderance of the evidence" requirement of a civil trial. Basically, to win a civil trial, a party just has to show that it's "more likely than not" that the other side is at fault, not that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is why O.J. Simpson could be found "not guilty" of murder, but the victims' families still won a wrongful death case in civil court.

He can still be liable for assault.

That is not true. The elements required to prove criminal assault are different than those for proving assault under a civil standard as is the burden of proof.

That is not true. Do you remember the O.J. murder case? He was acquitted of murder, but a civil jury later found him liable and awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.

No. See O.J. Simpson case for that scenario. He won the criminal case but due to the burden of proof in the civil case being lowered he lost the civil case.

That's not true, criminal cases and civil cases have different standards of proof - so you can get seemingly-contradictory results. Famous case in point, OJ Simpson, he was acquitted of murder in the criminal case but found liable for wrongful death in the civil case.

No, that is not true. Criminal proceedings have the burden of "guilt beyond all reasonable doubt" which is the highest standard there is. Civil standard of proof is much lower. It is a preponderance of the evidence which means more likely than not (think of it as a 51/49 balancing test). Just because the proof could not be met on the higher standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, does not mean that the lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence could not be met.

No, that is untrue. Civil and criminal courts have different standards of proof. You might not be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the criminal standard, but you could still be found liable under a civil standard, which is "preponderance of the evidence."

That is not true. The burden of proof on a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. So, a jury could find that the evidence was insufficient to meet that high burden. However, the burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence - the slight tilting of the scales in favor of one party - a significantly lesser burden. A person can be found to be civilly liable despite a not guilty verdict.

No, that's not true. The standard for being found liable in a civil suit is less than that in a criminal case. A civil case only requires a preponderance (that is just slightly more than 50/50), whereas the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore someone may be found not guilty in a criminal matter but found liable in a civil matter.

No, that is not exactly true. In fact, its the reverse. If a person is found guilty of criminal assault, then the civil assaulthas basically been proven. However, many times when civil assault issued for, it is often charged as a negligent assault so theassaulter's insurance company will pick up coverage and payon the claim. Whereas, when it is a purposeful criminal assault, it can't be negligentunless it is charged that way criminally and then the insurance company is off the hook for coverage on the claim. Either way, if the civil assault is charged, and then the criminal assault is proven and the person is convicted, it doesn't let him/her off the hook for the civil claim against him/her.

No that is false. A person can beat a criminal case and still lose a civil case involving the same victim. Remember O.J. SIMPSON.

No, that's not true at all. There are totally different burdens of proof and, for that matter, perhaps different elements to be proven. In a civil case, the plaintiff must only show that he or she was more likely than not assaulted, while a prosecutor must of course prove the assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, this is not true. Even if acquitted of criminal assault you can be found civilly liable. The reason is simple. To prove you criminally guilty, you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt-a very high standard. to find you civilly guilty, you must be proven by a preponderance of evidence- a much lower standard.

A criminal procedure and a civil procedure are entirely different. Not guilty for any criminal assault does not absolve you from liability from a civil charge.

That is not correct. Think of OJ Simpson. Won criminal trial but lost the civil trial. The burden of proof is far less in a civil case.

Wrong. Look at OJ Simpson, who won the criminal case but lost the civil. Civil has a lower burden of proof.

No, that is not true. The burden of proof in a criminal case to prove guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt but it only takes a fair preponderance of the credible evidence to establish civil liability.

That is not accurate. The standard in a civil case is lower than in a criminal one, so a person could still be found liable for damages civilly.

A person can be found guilty of a civil charge of assault or battery, this is a tort. A person can also be found guilty of a criminal assault, this is a criminal charge. In a civil trial, the attorney for the plaintiff must prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted the alleged victim. It is much harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than it is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. So it’s easier to be guilty in civil court than it is in criminal court. They are also two separate trials and cannot be tried at the same time.

Not necessarily. Since the standard in civil cases is lower than a criminal case then he could still be liable civilly. However, the not guilty verdict will help.

Yes he can. Look what happened to OJ. He beat the criminal charge but he was found liable civilly and became subject to a huge money judgement.

no, there are different levels of proof necessary civil case can proceed even if Not Guilty or Dismissed

They absolutely can be sued in civil court, even if found not guilty in criminal court. OJ Simpson is a perfect example. He was found not guilty of murder in the criminal case, but found civilly liable for wrongful death in civil court. The two systems have different burdens of proof and different theories of liability.

They can still sue you civilly, but being found NG makes it much much harder.

No, that is not true. The burden in a criminal case is much higher. Case in point: perhaps you remember the OJ Simpson case: he was found "not guilty" in a criminal case, but in a civil case he was found to be liable and had to pay lots of money in damages. The burden is higher in a criminal case because, if convicted, the person can go to jail or prison. In a civil case, if found liable, the person will not go to jail. The only thing that a judge can impose is a financial award, which can be quite substantial. Another example is the Casey Anthony case. She was found not guilty in a criminal case, but there are individuals pursuing her civilly.

Not necassarily true. First, crimianl assault is prosecured by the State in criminl court with a higher burden of proof (Beynd a reasonable doubt). The civil ssault is a tort prosecuted by a personal inury lawyer and subejct to a lower standard (perponderence of the evidence). It certainly is possible to be found not guilty in criminal court and be held liable for the same event in civil trial.

You can be sued in civil court for the assault, even if found not guilty on the criminal charge. The burden of proof is different between criminal and civil causes of action, a plaintiff/complainant needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender committed the assault, whereas in a civil suit, it must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, a much easier burden for the plaintiff to prove to have the offender held liable for that same assault.

That's not true at all. The burden of proof for a criminal trial is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. That is a high burden. The burden of proof in a civil trial is By a Preponderance of the Evidence or "more-likely-than-not." This is not a high burden of proof. That said, assault and battery have a Statute of Limitations in Washington of two years from the date of the assault. Consequently, anyone wanting to sue must do so before the two-year anniversary of the assault. It is therefore important to keep track of the assailant's address and get him or her personally served with the lawsuit ASAP.

No. There are two reasons. First, in order to convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must prove him/her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To find someone liable in a civil case, the victim only needs to show more likely than not. Second, different parties are involved. In the criminal case, the People, but in the civil case, the victim. The most notorious example is O. J. Simpson who was acquitted in the criminal case, but found liable in the civil case brought by the families of the deceased.

Not true because the criminal case has a higher burden of proof.

Yes, he can. The reason for this is that the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is far higher than the standard of proof in a civil lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence).

That is not a true statement. The burden of proof is different. As far as I am aware, attorneys generally do not accept assault cases unless there is substantial damage involved.

Not true. Look at OJ Simpson. Innocent in the criminal case of murder but liable in the wrongful death case later. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case than it is in a criminal case so it's easier to prove civil assault than criminal assault.

If a person is found guilty, he or she is at increased risk of being found liable in a civil action on the same facts. When the conviction is final (usually when the appeal is over or no longer possible), the finding of guilt serves as proof of all the facts that must be proved to show guilt.

No, the burden of proof for civil assault is much less... two different cases. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal case for the murders, but in his civil case he was found liable for them..

Untrue. The burden of proof is far lower in a civil case.

Actually, because the standard of proof in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), it is possible to be liable for an assault in a civil case even though you were found not guilty in the criminal case. In short, the acquittal in the criminal case establish shows that the assault cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it may be true that the assault CAN be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson case. He was acquitted by the jury in the criminal case, but found liable in the subsequent civil case, for exactly the reasons above.

Dear Sir/Madam - That is incorrect. If someone is found not guilty or acquitted in the criminal court for assault does not mean he cannot be found liable in a civil assault. A criminal assault case has a higher burden of proof which is the jury must be sure "beyond a reasonable doubt". A civil jury only requires that the jury find that an assault occurred based on the "preponderance of the evidence" which is basically the scale tips more toward guilty or in percentages 51% guilty 49% innocent. That is how O.J. Simpson was acquitted on murder charges but found guilty in civil court for wrongful death. The whole concept and idea of this difference is, if we are going to take away a person's freedom, we have to be almost 100% sure or beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope this helps you understand the different levels of proof in the two different legal systems. Sincerely, B. Elaine Jones, Esq.

Absolutely false. Hearkening back to the O.J. Simpson trial where O.J. was acquitted (found not guilty) of murder charges but then convicted in a civil trial, yes, a civil action can still go forward. A person can be found civilly liable because the burden of proof is less than in a criminal trial. A civil trial is a trial for money, whereas a criminal trial is a trial to impose penal sanctions [and monetary restitution and fines if ordered]. An injured person or their heir may file a civil action. The District Attorney may file a criminal action.

There is a lower standard of proof in a civil trial and it is much easier to convince a jury that someone should have to pay money damages since you do not have to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's why OJ was found guilty in the civil trial even though he was acquitted by the criminal jury who were apparently asleep during the trial.