What Is the Law of Mutual Combat?
Mutual combat law is a legal doctrine that allows individuals who engage in a mutually agreed-upon physical altercation to avoid criminal prosecution for assault or other related crimes. This legal principle is based on the assumption that both parties consented to the fight and therefore should not face legal penalties. The doctrine has a long and storied history, with its roots tracing back to medieval England. During this time, consensual fights were often seen as a way to settle disputes, and the legal system did not typically interfere in these matters. However, as society and the legal system evolved, mutual combat was seen as less acceptable in the eyes of the law.
Contemporary mutual combat law originated in the United States in the late 18th century. In these early cases, mutual combat was often used as a defense against assault and battery charges. As the United States legal system developed, the doctrine was further refined to address the complexities of modern society. For example , some states require that the fight take place in a public space or that both parties be of a certain age. Additionally, some jurisdictions require that the fight be "fair," meaning that one party cannot be at a significant disadvantage.
In modern legal systems, mutual combat law is typically applied in limited circumstances. For instance, some states require that the fight be prearranged and initiated in a "hot blood" state of mind. Other jurisdictions require that both parties have equal footing before the fight begins. Therefore, mutual combat laws generally only apply in cases where there is clear consent from both parties to engage in a physical altercation in a controlled environment. Overall, mutual combat law is a doctrine that has evolved over centuries and continues to be relevant in modern legal systems. It reflects society’s evolving views on consent and the role of the legal system in defining acceptable behavior.
State Laws: When and Where is Mutual Combat Legal
When it comes to fighting amongst friends, states of the country span from highly trained professionals like boxers or wrestlers, to people behind the bar or at a party, to ordinances in certain cities to protect people in self-defense scenarios. Mutual combat law, in particular, is when the parties involved willingly agree to fight.
According to Nolo, mutual combat is a doctrine that recognizes mutual voluntary combat as a means to settle argument with physical fighting. In some cases, under mutual combat the defendant can argue self-defense if the force used to respond to a potentially deadly threat is proportional to the response. This doctrine clears the defendant of criminal liability, like assault. Technically, mutual combat refers strictly to street fights: unorganized, spontaneous fisticuffs. However, there are several places in the U.S. that recognize it in the courts and criminal system – but usually with narrow limits. For example, in Florida, mutual consent is not a legal defense when it comes to the protection against using imminent physical harm or death. Perhaps one of the most well-known protections of mutual consent is Texas. Although the Texas Legislature didn’t codify mutual and police consent until 2015, the judicial system has recognized mutual combat for more than a century albeit with limitations. Today, most courts and police in the state will legally recognize and bow out of investigating when there’s a mutual consent to fight. In fact, in Texas, police will refuse to engage themselves unless there is serious injury. However, there are limitations to mutual combat in Texas. For example, if a gun or deadly weapon is used in the confrontation, mutual combat is not a viable defense. The explanation is, even though both parties agreed to engage in the fight, and agreed to the use of force, the other party did not consent to deal with the use of a weapon. Texas isn’t the only state that recognizes mutual combat law. Courts in Virginia, Georgia, West Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama, and Mississippi have also treated the mutual consent of police officers devoid of a crime. As a whole, the courts in the U.S. have either not recognized mutual combat or limited the applicability of the defense.
Legal Requirements and Limitations
Under certain circumstances, the courts in some jurisdictions have permitted the doctrine of mutual combat to absolve defendants of criminal charges stemming from a fight. Some courts have extended the doctrine in civil contexts and allowed defendants to use consent as a legal defense. Only in states with "mutual combat" laws or statutes, or which recognize the doctrine under common law, can a defendant in a criminal case legally consent to act as an aggressor or instigator. This permissibility is, however, strictly limited to those instances where the parties are of equal standing and are "equal combatants" to a mutual agreement to engage in a physical confrontation. In this regard, mutual combat is similar to trial by battle, a form of justice for which God has decided that men, and not God, may do. Trial by battle permitted an accused person to consent to fight their accuser until one side rendered the other incapable of continuing, thus determining guilt or innocence.
As the Right to Fight notes in their blog: In general, the law requires that the victim and defendant be equal combatants, or otherwise it should appear that the victim was better able to defend himself or herself or escape than the defendant. The rationale behind this requirement is that if the two are equal combatants there is no need for the law to intervene, or, at least, less need for the law to intervene. . . . A final point to remember about mutual combat is that both parties must have voluntarily and knowingly agreed to participate in it. If one person involuntarily participates, then it will not be considered mutual combat. Mutual combat, unlike self-defense, has been rejected as a defense to liability in certain torts, such as intentional torts to the person, negligence, and trespass.
Mutual Combat in Court: Case Studies and Examples
While mutual combat law justifies consensual fights to dismiss criminal charges, the law is not so clear when injuries are serious. A notable example is Grunke v. State (Nevada 2018), where the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a conviction for attempted second-degree murder in a case involving a mutual fight between two former employees. After arguing at work and exchanging profanities over dinner, the defendant attacked the victim with a knife and stabbed them the neck. He explained that he initially tried to choke the victim before resorting to the knife, presumably with the intent of seriously injuring or killing them. After determining that "winner’s remorse" prior to injury does not defeat self-defense, the court held that the assault was not consensual and thus did not fall under the mutual combat law.
In People v. White (California 1950), the court dismissed a mutual combat defense by relying on a traditional understanding of provocation law that excludes mutual fight from classic heat of passion. The defendant and their victim had been long-time friends who entertained a $5 bet regarding who could pick the most strawberries in an hour. After he lost the bet , the victim angrily called the defendant a "cheat". The defendant, who soon became furious, returned five minutes later and shot the victim in the leg seven times in front of numerous witnesses. The court held that the provocation did not constitute legally sufficient provocation, and the defendant was sentenced to life in prison.
States have previously approached mutual combat law from opposite perspectives. For example, before its merger into the Uniform Peer Court Act, the Peer Court Act of 1985 established preemptive statutes for peer court adjudication of assault and battery cases, both of which constitute mutual fights. Section 2.15 of the Peer Court Act of 1985 stated that, while the law applies to physical aggression that qualifies as a zero-tolerance offense, neither youth courts nor mutual combat laws apply. However, rather than viewing mutual combat prevention as an exception to self-defense doctrine, many other states have interpreted it simply as a way to avoid criminal liability. Both California and Illinois, for instance, established legal precedents that tempered conflicting views of mutual combat law by allowing the idea of "unmitigated malice" to influence rulings.
Public Controversy and Morality Issues
Mutual combat, unlike self-defense, isn’t seen as a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Instead, it’s a localized legal principle meant to address (and – when necessary – even condone) those fights that break out on the streets often at a moment’s notice – and usually – because one of the people has a tetanus shot and prepared for what’s to come. The idea is that it at least provides a bit of legal protection for those who threw caution to the wind and engaged in a consensual fight and prevents or at least minimizes potential criminal prosecution.
But just because it has some logical merit doesn’t mean it is applied fairly and consistently, or with an ethical consideration for the lives it may negatively impact. That’s why, as the legal principle continues to be applied throughout the country, there are critics of its use. A simple search of "mutual combat law" shows that the majority of the news stories surrounding it revolve around cases in which accusations of the law being misused have been tossed about.
Take, for example, this 2016 story about a New York police officer who was accused of using the concept that "you both get arrested" as a way to end his responsibility to break up a fight between two college students. Or, consider the notable death of a UFC fighter who was killed in the self-defense of a state champion wrestler after a bar fight; police determined, in accordance with the law in "mutual combat states" that both men were equally culpable in the reasons underlying the incident and so neither would be prosecuted.
Indeed, in a number of states, "mutual combat" laws have received negative attention due to accusations that the laws, alongside common law principles of provocation and intoxication, are being misapplied to permit the continued violence against women. One participating attorney remarked, "There are situations where women are in relationships with a partner that abuses them physically. And they’re abused on repeated occasions, and there’s some notion that because they don’t leave, then that means it was consensual. So they’re really victimized twice."
Another found that while there was improved awareness and sensitivity to the issues regarding domestic violence, the majority of states hold onto the idea that "what happens behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors."
More broadly, many have considered whether "mutual combat" laws actually stand for the idea that simply because a fight has occurred and no one wants to participate in law enforcement’s response to it, that no one should be. Indeed, some scholars suggest that considering consent a defense to physical aggression has the possibility of "eroding the norm against violence" and still leaves the door open for "myths about women’s sexuality."
As such, the consensus seems to be that while these laws might help some people, the reality is that there is a very real possibility that criminal prosecution can be avoided unfairly and without merit in some instances, while in others, a victim will have to "prosecute" her own case, since the attack on her body was both consensual and criminal.
In the jurisprudence, of course, things are much less absolute. It’s just that the ethical and societal implications of "mutual combat" laws remain an open-ended question, with no review by the United States Supreme Court.
Looking into the Future for the Law of Mutual Combat
As mutual combat law is a relatively niche area, it would be easy to dismiss its future significance in an age where social dynamics are constantly in flux. However, its roots run deep in the legal tradition, and its principles often resurface in various forms. Thus, it is essential that lawmakers, the legal community, and the general public continue to be aware of its implications and applications.
One area of potential change may come from a growing public perception surrounding the ethics of consensual fighting. With the increasing popularity of organized combat sports, such as MMA and street fights spreading over social media, the idea of consensual violence is becoming more normalized . While combat in a controlled, competitive environment is a far cry from mutual combat law as it is currently interpreted, the distinction in public opinion could very well lead to calls for legislative reform highlighting the need for consensual violence to be either legalized, or at least decriminalized, along with the prosecution of bystanders failing to intervene in such fights.
On the other end of the spectrum, there is a great deal of sentiment in some quarters advocating more severe penalties against those who voluntarily engage in reciprocal violence resulting in severe injury to their opponent. Many states have certain laws involving misdemeanors or disorderly offenses that strictly prohibit fights, in recognition of the public safety dangers that mutual combat may pose. As time goes on, it is likely that whatever we see in the way of evolution in this field will continue to be influenced by varying public perceptions regarding violence, and what role, if any, that the state should have in regulating it.