Facing Battery Charges in Georgia? 100 Defenses That Could Help Your Case
Being accused of battery in Georgia is a serious matter that can carry significant legal consequences, including criminal charges, fines, and potentially jail time. However, it is important to remember that a criminal charge is not the same as a conviction.
Under Georgia law, battery refers to the intentional and unlawful use of force against another person, causing them harm or injury. This broad definition allows for a variety of potential defenses in a criminal case.
Whether you are a defendant or a legal professional, it’s essential to understand the different strategies that can be used to challenge a battery charge. Defenses can range from challenging the evidence of harm to asserting that the alleged victim consented to the act, or that the defendant was acting in self-defense or defense of others.
As battery attorneys in Georgia, we wanted to write a blog post to explore over 100 defenses to battery charges under Georgia law. These defenses may not only help exonerate an accused person, but they can also lead to reduced charges or even a complete dismissal of the case.
While the list is extensive, each defense must be considered carefully within the context of the case at hand. Whether you're seeking a comprehensive overview or specific guidance on how to challenge a battery charge, we will cover the most relevant and effective strategies available.
1. Self-Defense
Self-defense is one of the most common and often successful defenses in battery cases. Under Georgia law, an individual has the right to use force to protect themselves if they are faced with an imminent threat of harm. However, this right is not unlimited. The force used must be proportionate to the threat and must be reasonable under the circumstances. This is a highly fact-specific defense and requires showing that the defendant was acting out of necessity to prevent harm.
2. Defense of Others
Georgia law also allows individuals to use force to protect another person from harm, under the same conditions as self-defense. The defendant must reasonably believe that the person they are protecting is in immediate danger of being harmed and that their use of force is necessary to prevent that harm.
3. Lack of Intent
Battery requires the intentional infliction of harm. If the defendant did not intend to harm the victim, there may be a defense of lack of intent. For example, if the defendant acted out of anger but did not plan to hurt the victim, it may be possible to argue that the charge of battery should not apply.
4. Consent
In certain situations, a victim may have consented to the act that resulted in injury. This is a complex and fact-specific defense. If the victim willingly participated in an activity where physical contact or injury was expected (e.g., in a sporting event or a fight), then they may have waived their right to sue for battery.
5. False Allegations
In some cases, the defendant may be able to prove that the allegations made by the alleged victim are false. This defense often involves showing inconsistencies in the victim’s story, presenting evidence of motives for lying, or casting doubt on the reliability of the victim’s testimony.
6. No Harm Was Caused
For a charge of battery, there must be actual harm or injury to the victim. If the prosecution cannot prove that any harm occurred, the charge may be reduced or dismissed. This may include showing that the alleged injury was either minimal or did not occur at all.
7. Provocation
In some cases, the alleged victim's actions may have provoked the defendant into reacting in a way that resulted in battery. If the defendant was reacting to an immediate and unreasonable provocation by the victim, it could be argued that the battery was a result of the victim’s actions.
8. Duress
If the defendant was forced to commit the act of battery under duress or threat of harm, this may be used as a defense. For example, if the defendant was coerced into committing battery against someone else under the threat of death or injury, they may be able to argue that they lacked the free will to act otherwise.
9. Mental Incapacity or Insanity
Under Georgia law, a defendant may assert a defense of mental incapacity or insanity if, at the time of the alleged battery, they lacked the mental ability to understand the nature of their actions or to distinguish between right and wrong. This is often a challenging defense to use but can be effective in cases where mental illness is present.
10. Mistake of Fact
This defense applies when the defendant was mistaken about some fact that, if true, would make their conduct lawful. For example, if the defendant struck someone in a situation where they mistakenly believed they were acting in self-defense, this could serve as a defense to battery.
11. Accident
Sometimes, injuries happen as the result of an accident rather than intentional harm. If the defendant can prove that the injury was not intentional and occurred due to a genuine accident, this could serve as a defense to a battery charge.
12. Lack of Evidence
If the prosecution cannot present sufficient evidence that the defendant committed battery, the charge may be dropped or reduced. This could involve a lack of physical evidence or reliable testimony from the victim or witnesses.
13. Mutual Combat
In some situations, both parties may engage in a physical altercation willingly. If the defendant can prove that the alleged victim participated in mutual combat, it could serve as a defense. This would show that both parties agreed to fight and that the defendant’s actions were part of that agreed-upon exchange.
14. Excessive Force in Self-Defense
While self-defense is an acceptable defense to battery, if the force used exceeds what is necessary to defend oneself, it may no longer be valid. However, if the defendant can argue that the response was reasonable under the circumstances, even though excessive, it could still be a viable defense.
15. Justifiable Use of Force
In situations where a person has a legal right to use force, such as a law enforcement officer or security personnel, this could be a defense. If the defendant was acting in the capacity of their role, and the use of force was justifiable, the charge of battery may not apply.
16. Mistaken Identity
In some cases, the defendant may be wrongly identified as the person who committed the battery. This defense involves proving that the defendant was not the one who caused the harm, either due to mistaken eyewitness testimony, misidentification, or lack of evidence.
17. Alibi
An alibi defense involves proving that the defendant was not present at the scene of the alleged battery at the time it occurred. Strong evidence, such as witness testimony or video footage, may be used to support this defense.
18. State of Mind (Temporary Insanity or Emotional Disturbance)
In certain cases, a defendant may argue that they were temporarily insane or emotionally disturbed at the time of the alleged battery. This would involve evidence showing that the defendant was not in control of their actions due to an emotional breakdown or mental disturbance.
19. Accidental Injury During Self-Defense
If a defendant can show that an injury occurred unintentionally while defending themselves or another person, they may use the defense of accidental injury in self-defense. This may be supported by physical evidence, such as the positioning of the parties or the nature of the injuries.
20. No Contact with Victim
A defendant could argue that there was no physical contact between them and the alleged victim. This defense would rely on a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant made contact with the victim in the manner described by the prosecution.
21. False Memory or Misinterpretation by Victim
Sometimes, the victim’s memory or perception of the incident may be inaccurate. This defense involves suggesting that the victim’s recollection of events was flawed or misinterpreted, leading them to believe they were battered when, in fact, they were not.
22. Victim’s Injuries Were Caused by Something Else
If the victim’s injuries could have been caused by something other than the defendant’s actions, this may serve as a defense. This could involve presenting alternative explanations, such as an accident, prior injury, or another person’s involvement.
23. Victim’s Aggressive Behavior
If the victim was acting aggressively toward the defendant and the defendant responded to that aggression, this defense could be used. It would argue that the defendant’s actions were not an act of unprovoked violence, but rather a response to the victim’s behavior.
24. Provoked Response in a Heat of Passion
A defense of heat of passion can be used in some battery cases where the defendant acted out of intense emotion after being provoked. If the defendant was emotionally overwhelmed by the victim’s actions, this could be used to reduce the severity of the charge.
25. Defendant Was Not Present at the Scene
If the defendant can prove they were not at the scene of the alleged incident, they could use the defense of not being present. For example, if the defendant was elsewhere, there would be no opportunity for them to have committed the battery.
26. Video Evidence Supports Defendant’s Version of Events
If video evidence exists that supports the defendant’s version of events, this can be a powerful defense to battery charges. The video might show that the defendant acted in self-defense, was not involved in the incident, or that the injuries sustained were not caused by the defendant.
27. Defendant Was Under the Influence (Drugs/Alcohol) but Not to the Point of Being Insane
While intoxication does not generally excuse battery, in some cases, the defendant may argue that their state of intoxication did not fully impair their judgment or reasoning. This may be particularly relevant if the defendant acted impulsively due to intoxication, but still understood the consequences of their actions.
28. Lack of Evidence of Injury
For a battery charge to stand, there must be evidence that the victim suffered some form of harm. If the prosecution cannot prove the victim’s injuries or harm beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant may argue that the charge should be dismissed due to lack of evidence.
29. Evidence of Defendant’s Character and Reputation
If the defendant has a reputation for non-violence or good character in the community, evidence of this can be used to counter the prosecution's claims. It could show that the defendant’s actions were out of character or that they would not normally engage in violent behavior.
30. Injuries Were Pre-existing
If the victim’s injuries were pre-existing or were not a result of the defendant’s actions, this can be a valid defense. Medical records or testimony from medical professionals may be presented to support the argument that the injuries were caused by an earlier incident.
31. Defendant Acted to Prevent Greater Harm
In some cases, the defendant may argue that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm. For example, if the defendant used force to stop a dangerous situation or to protect someone else from imminent harm, this could serve as a defense.
32. Defendant Was Acting in a Lawful Manner
If the defendant can show that they were acting lawfully—such as in their capacity as a law enforcement officer, security personnel, or even in their own home—they may be able to argue that their actions were justifiable and not criminal.
33. No Evidence of Force Being Used
For a battery charge to hold, there must be evidence that force was used against the victim. If the defendant can argue that no force was used (for example, in a case where a verbal altercation was mistaken for a physical one), this could be a defense to the charge.
34. Lack of Proof of Intentional Harm
Battery charges require proof of intent. If the defendant can demonstrate that the harm caused was not intentional, they may avoid a conviction. For instance, an accidental push or bump that caused injury might be a defense if the action was not meant to cause harm.
35. Injury Not Caused by Defendant’s Actions
If the injury sustained by the alleged victim occurred due to external factors unrelated to the defendant's actions, this could be a defense. This might include injuries caused by the victim’s own actions or other people involved in the altercation.
36. Defendant Was Defending Property
In some cases, a person is legally justified in using force to defend their property from theft or damage. If the defendant can prove they used reasonable force to defend their property, they might be able to avoid liability for battery.
37. The Battery Was a Result of Reckless Conduct, Not Intentional Action
If the defendant did not act with the intent to harm but instead acted recklessly, they may be able to argue that their actions do not meet the legal definition of battery. Recklessness involves a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm, as opposed to an intentional act of harm.
38. Impossibility of Battery (Victim Could Not Have Been Harmed)
If the prosecution cannot prove that the victim was capable of being harmed by the defendant's actions (due to factors such as physical limitations, lack of injury, or other circumstances), this may be a valid defense.
39. Defendant Was Under Age
In some instances, the defendant’s age may be a defense. If the defendant is a minor and lacks the legal capacity to commit a criminal offense or understand the consequences of their actions, they may not be held liable for battery.
40. Defendant Was Not Aware of the Victim’s Presence
If the defendant was unaware that the victim was present during the alleged battery, they may argue that their actions were unintentional. For example, if the defendant was in a crowded area and accidentally harmed someone without realizing it, they may use this defense.
41. Use of Force in a Justifiable Manner (Civil Disobedience)
In some situations, the defendant may argue that their use of force was part of a larger context of civil disobedience, such as protesting or engaging in actions where physical contact was unavoidable. If the force used was not meant to harm but was part of an effort to advance a political or social cause, it could serve as a potential defense.
42. Right to Use Force in an Emergency Situation
An emergency situation may justify the use of force if it was necessary to protect oneself, others, or property. This defense is used when the defendant can show that they acted out of necessity to address an immediate and unforeseen emergency, rather than out of an intent to commit battery.
43. Misunderstanding Between Parties
In some cases, a misunderstanding between the defendant and the alleged victim can lead to accusations of battery. If the defendant can show that the act in question was a result of miscommunication, and no harm was intended, this could be used as a defense.
44. Involuntary Act
If the defendant's actions were involuntary—such as being coerced into committing battery or being physically forced by another person—this could serve as a defense. An involuntary act happens when the defendant was not in control of their actions at the time of the incident.
45. Inability to Form Intent (Due to Age or Maturity)
A young or immature defendant may not have the cognitive ability to form the intent necessary to commit battery. This defense is based on the argument that the defendant did not possess the mental faculties or maturity to intend harm.
46. Victim’s Injury Was a Result of External Factors
If the victim’s injury occurred because of external factors unrelated to the defendant’s actions—such as the victim falling or colliding with another object—this can be used as a defense. This would undermine the claim that the defendant caused the harm.
47. Non-Physical Harm (No Physical Contact Occurred)
In cases where there was no physical contact between the defendant and the alleged victim, the defendant may argue that the charge of battery is inapplicable. Verbal disputes or threats, unless accompanied by physical harm, are typically not considered battery.
48. Defendant Was Provoked But Did Not Initiate Aggression
If the defendant was provoked by the victim but did not initiate the aggression, this defense might be used. The defendant can argue that while they reacted to provocation, they did not start the confrontation, which might reduce the charge or shift blame.
49. Victim Was Not Seriously Injured
Battery typically involves intentional harm. If the alleged victim did not sustain serious or visible injuries, the defendant may argue that the incident should not rise to the level of battery and could instead be classified as a lesser charge.
50. Statute of Limitations Has Expired
Georgia law imposes a statute of limitations on criminal charges, including battery. If the prosecution fails to bring charges within the time limit (generally two years for felony battery), the defendant can argue that the case should be dismissed due to the expired statute of limitations.
51. No Force Was Used in the Situation
If there was no actual use of force or physical harm, the defendant can argue that the charge of battery does not apply. In situations where the alleged victim claims harm but no force was used, the battery charge may be disproven.
52. False Witnesses or Testimony
If the defendant can prove that the witnesses against them are lying, this could serve as a defense. False witness testimony could involve motivations such as bias, personal animosity, or a desire to manipulate the facts for personal gain.
53. Video Surveillance Shows Defendant Was Not Involved
In today’s age of surveillance, video evidence from nearby cameras could serve as an important defense if it shows that the defendant was not involved in the battery incident. This could show the defendant’s absence from the scene or disprove key elements of the prosecution's case.
54. Battery Charge Should Be a Lesser Offense
Sometimes, the charge of battery might be disproportionate to the situation. For example, a defendant might argue that their actions should be classified as a lesser offense, such as simple assault, rather than felony battery.
55. Defendant Was Under the Duress of an Authority Figure
If the defendant was coerced or pressured into committing the battery by an authority figure, such as a boss, teacher, or family member, this could be a valid defense. Duress occurs when someone is forced to act in a certain way under the threat of harm.
56. Victim Has a History of Violence or Aggression
If the alleged victim has a history of violence or aggression, this can be used as a defense. The defendant may argue that they were acting in self-defense or reacting to the victim's previous behavior, establishing a pattern of aggression on the victim's part.
57. The Defendant Acted Under Emotional Distress
The defendant may claim that they were emotionally distressed or overwhelmed at the time of the battery. This could include extreme frustration, anxiety, or stress that led to impulsive actions, potentially reducing the severity of the charge.
58. Victim Was the Initial Aggressor
If the victim was the one to initiate the confrontation or aggression, the defendant may argue that they were simply responding to the initial attack. This could be a self-defense or justification argument, with the defendant acting to protect themselves.
59. Defendant Was Preventing a Crime
If the defendant was using force to prevent a crime, such as preventing someone from robbing a store or assaulting another person, this could be a valid defense to battery. The defendant might argue that their actions were necessary to stop a crime from taking place.
60. Defendant Was Acting Within the Law (Citizen’s Arrest)
In some cases, the defendant may have been acting in accordance with the law during a citizen’s arrest. If the defendant used force in attempting to detain or apprehend a suspect, they may have been within their rights and could argue that their actions were justified.
61. The Victim Was Uninjured and Feigned Harm
If the victim was not injured, but falsely claimed to have been harmed in order to exaggerate or fabricate the battery incident, the defendant may argue that the charge is based on a false claim and should be dismissed.
62. Insufficient Proof of Defendant’s Actions
The prosecution may fail to meet its burden of proof in demonstrating that the defendant actually committed battery. If there is insufficient evidence, including no physical evidence of harm, no eyewitness testimony, or lack of credible proof, the defendant may argue that the charge cannot stand.
63. Defendant Did Not Have the Ability to Commit Battery
In cases where the defendant could not physically carry out the alleged battery (e.g., due to being restrained, incapacitated, or unable to use force), this could be a valid defense.
64. Victim's Injuries Were Exaggerated
If the alleged victim exaggerated the severity of their injuries, the defendant could argue that the charge of battery does not apply. This defense may be bolstered by medical reports or expert testimony that refutes the extent of the claimed harm.
65. Defendant Was Acting Under the Influence of a Mental Disorder
If the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder or condition at the time of the alleged battery, it may be a defense. This could involve showing that the defendant’s actions were influenced by a mental health condition, such as PTSD or a mood disorder.
66. Preemptive Strike in Defense of Others
If the defendant used force as a preemptive strike to protect someone else, and it was necessary to prevent harm, this could serve as a defense to battery. The defendant may argue that they acted to protect another individual from immediate harm.
67. Consent Was Implied in Certain Situations (E.g., Sports)
In certain contexts, such as sporting events or other competitive activities, the alleged victim may have implicitly consented to physical contact. The defendant may argue that their actions were part of an activity where such physical contact is expected and consented to.
68. Non-Voluntary Act Due to Seizure or Medical Condition
If the defendant had a medical condition, such as a seizure or uncontrollable spasm, that caused them to act in a way that resulted in battery, they may argue that their actions were not voluntary.
69. The Defendant Was Acting in the Performance of a Legal Duty
If the defendant was performing a legal duty, such as an officer using force to maintain control in a situation, this could serve as a defense. In this case, the defendant’s actions would be justified by the performance of their lawful duties.
70. Mistakenly Believed Victim Was a Threat
If the defendant mistakenly believed that the alleged victim posed a threat to their safety or the safety of others, and their response was based on this mistaken belief, they could use this as a defense to a battery charge.
71. No Direct or Causal Link Between Defendant’s Actions and Injury
If there is no direct link between the defendant’s actions and the injury sustained by the victim, this can be a defense. The defendant might argue that the injury occurred due to external factors or that the victim’s actions caused their own injury.
72. Victim Was Willfully Engaging in Risky Behavior
In some cases, the defendant may argue that the alleged victim was engaging in risky behavior that led to their injuries. This could include situations where the victim's own actions or decisions directly contributed to the situation leading to the alleged battery.
73. The Defendant Was Engaged in an Argument, Not a Physical Altercation
If the incident was more of a verbal altercation than a physical one, the defendant could argue that no physical battery occurred, even though the victim may have exaggerated the situation to make it appear as though they were attacked.
74. Witness Testimony Conflicts with Victim's Claims
If there are credible witnesses who contradict the victim’s version of events, this can undermine the battery charge. This defense would focus on presenting conflicting testimony to discredit the victim’s narrative.
75. The Defendant Was Defending Against a Public Threat
If the defendant was protecting the public from harm, such as stopping someone from harming others or engaging in dangerous behavior, they might be able to justify their actions as a public defense.
76. No Clear Evidence of the Defendant’s Identity
If there is a question about the defendant's identity, such as if the defendant was misidentified or if there is a lack of solid evidence connecting them to the crime, this could be used as a defense to challenge the battery charge.
77. Imminent Threat Was Over Exaggerated
If the defendant can argue that the alleged victim’s description of an imminent threat was exaggerated or fabricated, they may be able to argue that their actions were not based on any real threat, undermining the charge of battery.
78. Lack of Proof of Battery in the First Place
The defendant could argue that the prosecution has failed to provide sufficient evidence of battery, including showing that there was no actual physical contact or injury, which is necessary for the charge to stick.
79. Victim Was Not Harmed and No Medical Evidence
If the prosecution cannot produce medical records or testimony showing that the victim was physically harmed by the defendant, this could be a defense. A lack of medical evidence weakens the battery claim significantly.
80. Existence of a Preceding Agreement or Negotiation
If the defendant and the alleged victim had previously agreed to engage in an altercation (for example, during a bar fight or after an argument), this agreement could be used as a defense to show that the battery was consensual or mutual.
81. Defendant Acted Under the Influence of an Uncontrollable Urge
If the defendant was overwhelmed by an uncontrollable urge or psychological compulsion at the time of the incident, they might use a defense involving their inability to control their actions. This could involve a psychological or medical condition that temporarily impaired their judgment.
82. Lack of Evidence of Intent to Commit Battery
For a battery conviction to stand, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to harm the victim. If the defendant can show that there was no intent to harm, or that the actions were accidental, this could be a defense. The defendant might argue that they acted recklessly, but not with the intent to cause injury.
83. Victim Was a Voluntary Participant in the Altercation
In some cases, the defendant can argue that the victim willingly participated in a confrontation and that the alleged battery was part of a mutual decision. The victim's active participation could negate the claim that the defendant was the sole aggressor.
84. Existence of a Justifiable Use of Force in Defense of Self-Defense Laws
In Georgia, self-defense laws can sometimes justify the use of force that might otherwise be considered battery. If the defendant was acting under the belief that they were defending themselves, the charge of battery may be defeated. The level of force used must be reasonable under the circumstances.
85. Defendant Was Acting to Prevent Injury to Others
If the defendant was attempting to protect another person from harm, and the use of force was necessary to stop a threat, this could serve as a defense. In cases where the defendant used force to prevent an injury to a third party, they may not be guilty of battery.
86. Defendant Did Not Have the Capacity to Commit Battery
This defense can be used if the defendant is a minor or otherwise lacks the mental capacity to commit a crime. This could include cases where the defendant's ability to understand the consequences of their actions was impaired due to age, mental illness, or developmental disability.
87. The Victim Was Exaggerating the Impact of the Battery
If the victim is exaggerating the severity of their injuries or the extent of the battery, the defendant can argue that the charge is inflated. For instance, the victim might claim they were severely harmed, but medical records or other evidence might show that the injuries were minimal or non-existent.
88. Defendant Was Acting in a Time of Extreme Stress
If the defendant was under extreme stress—such as dealing with a traumatic event, experiencing anxiety, or facing a highly stressful situation—this could be a mitigating factor. The defendant could argue that their actions were impulsive and influenced by emotional distress, which can reduce the severity of the battery charge.
89. Lack of Evidence of Battery in the Prosecution’s Case
In some cases, the prosecution might not present enough evidence to prove that the defendant committed battery beyond a reasonable doubt. This could be a defense if there is insufficient evidence to show that the defendant physically harmed the victim or intended to cause injury.
90. Victim's Actions Contributed to the Battery Incident
If the victim's actions directly contributed to the altercation or injury, the defendant may argue that the victim played a role in instigating the battery. The defendant could argue that they were only responding to the victim's provocations or actions.
91. Battery Was Not the Most Appropriate Charge
In some situations, a battery charge may not be the most fitting charge based on the evidence or the events that occurred. The defendant could argue that the situation was not one that should be classified as battery, and instead, a lesser charge like assault or reckless conduct might be more appropriate.
92. Defendant Was Engaged in a Defensive Action, Not Aggressive
If the defendant’s actions were defensive rather than aggressive, this could be a defense. The defendant might argue that they were only trying to defend their position, property, or safety, rather than initiating harm to the victim.
93. The Defendant Was Incapacitated at the Time of the Incident
If the defendant was incapacitated due to illness, injury, or unconsciousness at the time of the alleged battery, they could argue that they were not in control of their actions. This defense could also apply to cases involving temporary amnesia or blackouts.
94. Alleged Battery Occurred in a Private Setting with Consent
In cases where the alleged battery occurred in a private setting—such as during a personal relationship, domestic dispute, or between individuals with a mutual understanding of physical contact—the defendant could argue that the actions were consensual, not battery.
95. Victim Was Engaged in a Non-Threatening Behavior
If the alleged victim did not engage in any threatening or aggressive behavior that would justify a response, the defendant could argue that their actions were unwarranted and did not meet the legal definition of battery. The victim’s non-aggressive behavior could show that the battery charge is exaggerated.
96. Defendant Was Acting Under the Influence of an External Substance
While intoxication doesn’t usually excuse criminal behavior, in some cases, the defendant may argue that they were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which caused them to act without clear judgment. This could be used to argue a lack of intent to commit battery.
97. Battery Was a Result of a Mistaken Belief of Self-Defense
If the defendant honestly, but mistakenly, believed that they were in imminent danger of harm, they could use this as a defense to argue that they acted out of self-defense. This defense would be most effective if the belief was reasonable under the circumstances, even if it was ultimately mistaken.
98. Failure to Prove That Defendant’s Actions Were the Proximate Cause of Injury
If the prosecution cannot prove that the defendant’s actions were the direct cause of the alleged victim’s injuries, the battery charge could be defeated. For example, if another factor (e.g., another person or environmental conditions) contributed to the victim's injuries, the defendant might be absolved.
99. Defendant Did Not Intend to Use Deadly Force
If the defendant did not intend to use deadly force but the victim misunderstood the defendant’s intentions, it could serve as a defense to a more serious battery charge. For example, if the defendant used minimal force in a situation where the victim interpreted it as more serious harm, this might be a valid defense.
100. Defendant Was Subject to Unlawful Coercion or Threats
Finally, if the defendant was coerced or threatened into committing the battery by someone else, they may have a defense based on duress. In this case, the defendant would argue that they were forced into committing the act due to the threat of harm to themselves or others.
Georgia Battery Lawyer Near Me
Facing a battery charge in Georgia can feel overwhelming, but it’s important to remember that there are numerous potential defenses available. From self-defense claims to arguments based on mistaken identity or lack of evidence, there are many strategies that could help you avoid a conviction.
The battery attorneys at The Sherman Law Group are dedicated to providing the best possible defense for those facing battery charges. Our team of experienced criminal defense attorneys is ready to fight for your rights and work toward the best possible outcome for your case.
If you or a loved one is facing battery charges in Georgia, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact us today for a confidential consultation to discuss the specifics of your case. Let us help you protect your future and build a strong defense strategy that works in your favor.