## Facts

- Yslas went to a woman’s home and demanded liquor; after she gave him a drink, he demanded she drink with him.
- When she refused, Yslas became angry and threw the glass to the floor.
- Yslas threatened to kill her and advanced toward her with a raised hatchet, close enough to strike if she had not moved away.
- The woman fled into another room and locked the door.
- Yslas followed and struck the locked door with the hatchet; he did not strike her person.
- Yslas was charged and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder after the trial court refused his requested instruction that no assault occurs if the intended battery is prevented by the victim’s escape or outside intervention.

## Issues

1. Whether “present ability” for assault is satisfied when a defendant advances within striking distance with a deadly weapon but does not land a blow because the victim escapes or a barrier intervenes.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing an instruction that an assault is not complete if the intended battery is thwarted by the victim’s escape or outside intervention.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that an assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit violent injury on another.
- The court concluded the evidence supported present ability because Yslas, armed with a hatchet and within striking distance, had positioned himself to inflict injury and began to carry out the act.
- The court held the trial court properly refused the requested instruction because an assault does not depend on whether the victim successfully escapes or an obstacle prevents contact.

## Legal Principles

- Assault consists of an unlawful attempt plus a present ability to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
- “Present ability” exists when the defendant has the means and is in a position to inflict immediate injury at the time of the attempt, even if the battery is not completed.
- An assault is not negated because the intended victim escapes, or because intervention or a physical barrier prevents the blow from landing, so long as the attempt and present ability existed when the defendant acted.
- For assault analysis, the law focuses on the defendant’s acts and intent at the time of the threat and movement toward execution, not on the fortuity of victim avoidance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Yslas’s conviction, holding that assault is complete when a defendant, with intent to inflict violent injury, advances within striking distance with a deadly weapon and has present ability to strike, even if the victim’s escape or an intervening barrier prevents actual contact.


People v. Yslas, 27 Cal. 630 (Cal. 1865)