## Facts

- A sheriff’s sergeant was on duty at a public high school when he suddenly felt a stinging, burning sensation in his right eye and briefly “saw red.”
- Another officer indicated a student, Jeremy Britt Adams, had “lit” the sergeant with a laser and observed a red dot on the sergeant.
- The sergeant approached Adams; Adams produced a small keychain laser and stated, “It can’t hurt you.”
- The next day, a doctor found heavy eye irritation but no permanent injury.
- Adams was tried in a bench trial and convicted of assault and battery of a law-enforcement officer under Virginia law.
- Defense evidence included testimony that the laser dot moved around the sergeant’s upper torso and head from a distance; students claimed similar lasers caused no harm; Adams denied targeting the sergeant’s face or eye and characterized his conduct as “goofing off.”
- Adams challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing there was no legally sufficient “touching” and no proof of the required intent.

## Issues

1. Whether directing a laser beam into an officer’s eye can satisfy the “touching” element of battery when there is no direct bodily contact or tangible-object contact.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to commit assault and battery on a law-enforcement officer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding of a battery “touching” because the laser beam caused offensive physical contact with physical consequences (pain and irritation).
- The court held the trial court could infer the requisite intent from Adams’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
- Applying the deferential sufficiency standard, the court concluded the trial court’s judgment was not plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.

## Legal Principles

- Battery requires an offensive or forcible touching; physical injury is not required.
- A “touching” for battery may be accomplished indirectly through an instrumentality and need not be direct bodily contact.
- Intangible forces may satisfy the touching element when they produce an offensive physical contact with physical effects.
- Intent for assault and battery may be inferred from conduct, surrounding circumstances, and the natural and probable consequences of the defendant’s actions.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and the conviction stands unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a conviction for assault and battery of a law-enforcement officer, concluding that a laser beam intentionally directed into an officer’s eye can constitute the offensive touching required for battery and that intent may be proven by reasonable inferences drawn from the defendant’s actions and context.


Adams v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 463, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Ct. App. 2000)