What is Mutual Combat?
Mutual combat is simply the idea that you and your opponent each agree to make contact with each other to settle a dispute. I’ve seen other definitions explain mutual combat as when both parties come into a fist fight with the intent to harm the other, but I don’t mind that because we’ll get to the intent later.
There is no specific Georgia statute defining mutual combat, but under the law, mutual combat is a defense to almost any claim of violence. In fact, it is the reason that you don’t go to jail for fighting. You only go to jail if you are the initial aggressor and hit someone first. This makes sense because if someone gets punched, he or she is going to hit the person back. It is not illegal to engage in or participate in a physical fight as long as it is mutual combat from the start.
I say "almost any" because there are certain cases where mutual combat is not a defense. For instance, if someone involuntarily commits themselves to a mental health facility and the attack occurs there , it will not be considered mutual combat because the person lacks the mental capacity to consent to martial law.
The rule is that you cannot defend yourself against an initial attack if you are legally at fault for initiating the fight.
Often there is a dispute about who the initial aggressor is. If you and a stranger walking down the street get into a fist fight after arguing and shoving one another, the fact that you were outside in public makes it seem like the fight was more mutual than if a fight broke out in a quiet private home where only two people were.
If the person who got knocked out went and got a gun and returned and fired several shots into a crowd of 100 people, clearly that person is not legally free to use force. Even if the person was just defending himself or herself from that fight and the ensuing crowd that left the original fight, the first fight made the person initially responsible for the gun sacrifice. So even if that person started the first fight, the next fight out on the street was mutual combat. Only the initial fight was mutual combat.
Finally, this is where I get to the intent of the parties during the fight. This is the law as I see it, but mutual combat is often discussed in an emotional sense more than a legal one. Just because you did not mean to hurt someone does not mean that the response of the other person was not justified.
Georgia’s Approach to Mutual Combat
Georgia law has codified the common law understanding of mutual combat, and judges will routinely instruct juries on how to evaluate a simple assault charge. In determining whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a simple assault, the jury must consider the allegations and surrounding circumstances and determine whether the evidence proves or fails to establish that the defendant assaulted the alleged victim in self-defense or in mutual combat. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23(b).
Georgia’s criminal code distinguishes and assigns degrees of penalties to mutual combat, based on the severity of injuries produced. Different rules apply based on whether the offenses are felonies, or misdemeanors of a high and aggravated nature or simple assaults.
The case law is actually fairly sparse for misdemeanors, which is surprising considering that citizens get charged with misdemeanor simple assault more frequently than felony simple assault. Simple assault is defined as an "[a]ttempt[ ] to commit a violent injury to the person of another" or "[a]n act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury…" O.C.G.A. § 16-5-20.
Mutual combat is considered an affirmative defense to simple assault that negates one of the essential elements of the crime. State v. Aiken, 234 Ga. App. 843, 844, 507 S.E.2d 166 (1998).
For mutual combat to be available as an affirmative defense against a simple assault charge, the combat or battery must be mutual. Otherwise, there is no mutual combat. An argument can be made regarding what "mutual" means. A forty-seven year old man trying to pass off self-defense against a fifteen year old vehicle burglar would be hard-pressed to convince a jury that he was truly defending himself against someone his daughter’s age, much less that the fight was mutual.
It should also be noted, that if the defendant started the mutual combat, then there is no self-defense claim. Outing v. State, 296 Ga. App. 1, 1-2, 673 S.E.2d 70 (2009). The rationale being that it is reasonable to require that the victim be in a place where she has a right to be at the time the combat ensues. It should be noted that the defendant would be entitled nonetheless to a self-defense instruction where the defendant had retreated to a place of temporary safety and coincidentally encountered the victim. See White v. State, 218 Ga. App. 682, 683(1), 463 S.E.2d 192 (1995).
Mutual Combat in the State of Georgia
Legal Consequences of Mutual Combat in Georgia
Georgia law recognizes the concept of mutual combat and agrees that self-defense can potentially be used as a legitimate defense against a charge of battery. How do courts and juries go about determining whether a claim of mutual combat is credible in a case?
When the evidence shows that the defendant was not the initial aggressor and that he or she only engaged in combat to remove himself or herself from the situation, the charge of battery might be dropped or reduced. Georgia considers mutual combat as a legitimate defense to a physical assault, but the "defense" arises only when the defendant was attacked first or repeatedly.
For example, under the following fact scenario, a battery charge may be possible:
(Note: This fact scenario includes an actual 1983 Georgia Court of Appeals case that involved mutual combat.
What if the defendant had been the person who "fired the first shot," so to speak? Mutual combat cannot likely be used as a defense in a case where the evidence shows that the defendant was the one who initiated or provoked violence in some way. If someone has the ability to avoid the physical fight by walking away from his or her attacker, you cannot argue against the charge of battery. The law does not provide for the use of physical violence by defendants who instigate an act of violence in order to "even the score."
Being charged with a crime of violence such as battery can become quite complex. It’s important to get a skilled attorney to help you mount a strong defense based on the evidence that is available. Imagine the amount of time it takes for investigators to compile evidence at a trial based on who started the fight. If you have been charged with battery, whether it is alleged to be part of a mutual fight or not, it’s important that you get legal assistance as soon as you can in order to make sure your rights are protected at all times.
Mutual Combat Laws in Georgia
Georgia law has a number of notable cases that both involve mutual combat, or were influenced by it. In the 2016 case of State v. James Norman, the court ruled against municipal judges having their own set of procedures for municipal courts. The court ruled that such courts must follow the same rules as all other courts when adjudicating cases. While not specifically about mutual combat, this case did not involve the state and its courts being able to determine what the law was, therefore creating a de facto precedent for mutual combat. In the 2017 case of Quintana v. State, two people who mutually agreed to get into a fist fight in the middle of a yard did not commit aggravated battery under Georgia law . The court asked a jury to make a decision on the case, which ended up being decided by prosecutors, but this was later reversed by appellate court who ruled that two people who meet in the street and have a fistfight without getting seriously injured do not commit any crime under the law. David v. State was a 2015 case where two men mutually agreed to enter an unarmed fistfight following a discussion about whose dog was is better. However, one of the men was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon when he grabbed a shovel when his opponent had him on the ground. In this case, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to say a reasonable person would not have grabbed a shovel to defend himself from "only a fistfight." They ruled this as excessive force due to the imminent threat of serious bodily injury being so low.
Cases and Analysis
In Georgia, the concept of mutual combat has been met with a mix of confusion and criticism. Some view it as a justifiable defense to what would otherwise be an unlawful act of violence. Others see it as a tool for protecting dangerous behavior and perpetuating a cycle of violence. Public perception of mutual combat is further complicated by its differentiation from self-defense. As the line between self-defense and mutual combat can be a fine one, the rule has attracted its share of media attention. The issue was brought back into the public eye late last year when a viral video of a Fulton County fifth grader and his classmate, both wearing school uniforms, throwing punches in a Dekalb County high school hallway went viral. Even though no serious injuries were reported, the incident drew public outrage over the apparent lack of supervision on school property, underlying bullying issues, and the standard for fighting in self-defense. Since then, the matter has been referred to the DeKalb County School District leadership. As of this writing, no updates have been issued. In another recent case, a law firm and a judge in Hall County were reprimanded by the Georgia Supreme Court for their role in a court case involving an altercation between two fighting teens. The factual background of the case is that after a fight broke out between two teens, one of the teens was treated for a stab wound to his abdomen. The second teen was charged in Juvenile Court with aggravated assault. The Juvenile Court judge set the bond for the defendant at $200,000 and imposed several release conditions including a 6:00 p.m. curfew and a prohibition against leaving the State. The juvenile defendant’s law firm filed a motion to modify the conditions of confinement. Following a hearing, the Juvenile Court judge modified the conditions of the release, changing the bond from $200,000 to an unsecured bond and allowing the teen to leave the State. After the modification, the defendant’s law firm tweeted that the conditions were changed, garnering national media attention. In a quick response, the Hall County Juvenile Court judge publicly stated that the defendant’s law firm had posted "inaccurate information" on social media. The case is now pending review or appeal in the Georgia Court of Appeals. These incidents may be the tip of the iceberg in terms of the public’s awareness of mutual combat law in Georgia. As cases continue to garner national attention, it can be expected that the interpretation of the defense will continue to evolve.
Public Controversy and Perception
As we have seen, the legal landscape surrounding mutual combat in Georgia is a complex one, steeped in historical precedent and continually adapting to modern-day realities. In this article, we have delved into the origins of mutual combat law, unpacked its interplay with bar fights and dueling laws, and explored the wider implications for self-defense claims, insurance, and civil liability.
This niche area seems perhaps ripe for legislative clarification or reform. For example, take Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law, which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense as long as the person had no "reasonable opportunity to retreat." This law could be amended to provide clearer guidance on when the mutual combat doctrine would apply and when it would not. Such a change could help law enforcement and prosecutors more easily determine whether an alleged fight should be classified as mutual combat or not. Similarly, barring a constitutional amendment, state legislation to explicitly include a cultural or "dueling" exception to the anti-mixed-martial-arts law would help clarify the definition of "skilled."
Dramatic changes in other areas of the law can have unintended consequences . For instance, while the passage of a comprehensive enough domestic violence statute could theoretically undermine the use of mutual combat as an excuse for bar fights, the unintended consequence could be increased violence against women or domestic violence overall. Successful programs like CAB.50 in Colorado and Domestic Violence and the File Separation of Legal Studies in Victoria, Australia, that use intervention groups for male perpetrators to "treat men’s harmfulness directly" offer promise for reducing violence against women without criminalizing fights. Similar programs and increased community awareness of mutual combat law could also promote the resolution of conflicts before they end up in police headquarters or, worse yet, in the ER or morgue.
In any case, mutual combat law—the law itself and our individual response to it—will continue to evolve as society does, mirroring broader cultural changes in attitudes towards fighting, masculinity, and conflict resolution. The question remains: How will we, as a society, treat the "brawling" inherent in bar fights? Will we see a move towards more self-regulation, or will fights continue to be viewed as pathological and so become an issue for the courts to decide?