WOW! I felt that one in my own head! As a criminal defense lawyer in Queens, NY, watching Pete Alonso take a 94.6-MPH fastball to the helmet got me thinking: Could a pitcher actually face criminal assault charges for something that happens on the baseball field?
On August 30, 2026, former New York Mets star Pete Alonso, now playing for the Baltimore Orioles, took a 94.6-MPH fastball to the brim of his helmet during a game against the Athletics. The pitch, thrown by rookie Kade Morris, sent Alonso to the ground as trainers rushed onto the field. Fortunately, Alonso was able to get up and walk to first base before leaving the game.
Alonso even gave Morris a thumbs-up afterward, apparently recognizing that the pitch had gotten away from the young pitcher. No hard feelings, although I suspect Alonso would have preferred a walk.
But watching Pete Alonso take a 94.6-MPH fastball to the helmet got me thinking about something that rarely comes up during a baseball broadcast. What if the pitcher had done it intentionally?
Getting hit by a pitch is part of baseball. Every professional player understands that risk. But what happens when a pitcher deliberately throws a baseball at another player’s head? Could the injured batter sue the pitcher personally? Could the pitcher actually face criminal assault charges?
As a criminal defense lawyer in Queens, NY, I find that last question particularly interesting because while baseball has its own rules, the sport does not automatically shield someone from criminal responsibility.
Pete Alonso Hit by Pitch: Where Does Baseball End and Criminal Assault Begin?
Baseball is not a gentle sport. Players slide into bases, collide while chasing fly balls, and occasionally take a fastball to the ribs. Some pitches get away from even the most experienced pitchers, and every professional batter understands that stepping into the batter’s box carries certain risks.
In legal terms, this brings us to something called the assumption of risk.
When you voluntarily participate in a sport, you generally accept the ordinary dangers associated with that activity. A boxer understands that he may get punched. A football player understands that he may get tackled. A baseball player understands that he may be struck by a pitched ball.
However, accepting the ordinary risks of a sport does not necessarily mean consenting to every conceivable act of violence committed by another participant.
Suppose a pitcher is angry because a batter celebrated a home run during an earlier inning. The next time that batter steps up to the plate, the pitcher deliberately throws a fastball at his head, intending to injure him.
The batter suffers a fractured skull.
We now have a situation that raises questions beyond whether the pitcher deserves to be ejected from the game.
Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario, not an accusation against Kade Morris. Orioles manager Craig Albernaz described the pitch that struck Alonso as one that got away from the young pitcher, and Alonso’s reaction suggested that he understood what had happened.
Nevertheless, the frightening moment involving Pete Alonso illustrates an interesting legal distinction: an accidental injury during a sporting event and a deliberate attempt to injure another person are not necessarily treated the same way under the law.
Could a Pitcher Face Criminal Assault Charges in New York for Intentionally Hitting Pete Alonso?
Let’s imagine that a similar incident occurred during a baseball game in New York and that the circumstances supported an allegation of intentional injury.
Would the pitcher automatically face criminal assault charges?
Not necessarily. A prosecutor would need to establish the specific elements of an applicable criminal offense, and the distinction between a pitch that accidentally gets away from someone and a deliberate attack could become central to the case.
Under New York law, assault in the third degree can involve intentionally causing physical injury to another person or recklessly causing such an injury. More serious assault charges may apply when additional statutory requirements are satisfied, including certain circumstances involving serious physical injury or the use of a dangerous instrument.
But an injury alone does not establish criminal guilt.
Could a Baseball Be Considered a Dangerous Instrument?
You might be surprised to learn that an ordinary baseball could potentially qualify as a dangerous instrument under New York law.
Most people hear the term “dangerous instrument” and immediately think of a gun, knife, or baseball bat. But the law does not limit the definition to objects manufactured as weapons.
An ordinary object can qualify as a dangerous instrument depending on how it is used and whether, under those circumstances, it is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Consider a glass bottle. Sitting on a restaurant table, it is simply a bottle. If someone deliberately strikes another person in the head with it, the legal analysis changes considerably.
A baseball traveling nearly 100 miles per hour toward someone’s head raises a similar question. Whether it legally qualifies as a dangerous instrument in a particular case would depend on the circumstances in which it was used.
Now imagine that the hypothetical pitcher had threatened the batter earlier in the game, deliberately targeted his head, and caused a serious injury. Those circumstances could become relevant to whether prosecutors could establish an assault charge.
As a Queens criminal defense lawyer, however, I would want to examine considerably more than the injury and an angry crowd’s reaction.
What happened before the pitch? Was there an earlier confrontation? Did the pitcher actually intend to cause physical injury, or was he attempting to throw inside and simply missed his location? What did the video show? What evidence supported the allegations?
Criminal responsibility cannot be established simply because an incident looked terrible on television. The prosecution must prove the elements of the offense charged, and the defense has the right to challenge that evidence.
Could Pete Alonso Sue the Pitcher Personally for a Helmet Injury?
Now let’s consider the civil side of the question.
Could a professional baseball player who suffers a serious injury after being intentionally struck by a pitch bring a personal injury lawsuit against the pitcher?
Potentially, yes.
Civil liability and criminal liability are two different matters. A civil lawsuit generally concerns whether an injured person has a legal basis to recover compensation, while a criminal prosecution concerns whether the government can prove that someone committed a criminal offense.
The assumption-of-risk doctrine plays an important role in sports-related personal injury cases. Under New York law, athletes generally accept risks inherent in the sport they voluntarily participate in, including some risks created by the ordinary actions of other players.
However, New York courts have recognized that participants do not necessarily assume risks arising from another person’s reckless or intentional misconduct.
For a batter injured by an ordinary pitch that got away from the pitcher, the assumption-of-risk doctrine could present a substantial obstacle to a civil claim.
An intentional attack involving conduct outside the ordinary risks of the game could raise different questions.
That does not mean a civil lawsuit would automatically succeed. The injured player would still need to establish a viable legal claim, address any applicable defenses, and prove the resulting damages.
It is also worth remembering that the actual Pete Alonso helmet injury occurred in California. Any real lawsuit or criminal prosecution arising from that incident would require consideration of the laws governing that jurisdiction, rather than simply applying New York law.
For our purposes, the Alonso incident provides an opportunity to explore how a similar situation might be evaluated under New York law.
From Pete Alonso’s Helmet Injury to Assault Charges in Queens
You may be wondering what a baseball game has to do with an ordinary criminal assault case in Queens, NY.
Quite a bit, actually… Most assault cases do not involve professional athletes, television cameras, or baseballs traveling at 94.6 miles per hour. They involve ordinary people who find themselves in situations that escalate much faster than anyone anticipated.
Imagine two men arguing outside a restaurant in Queens. One shoves the other, who responds by throwing a punch. The first man falls, strikes his head against the pavement, and suffers a serious injury.
The police arrive, someone is arrested, and suddenly an argument that lasted less than a minute has become a criminal case.
But who committed the assault? Was the punch an unlawful attack, or was the person responding to an immediate threat? Did the defendant intend to cause an injury? Were the injuries caused by intentional or reckless conduct?
These are not questions that can necessarily be answered by looking at a photograph of the injured person.
What About Self-Defense?
New York law recognizes that a person may be justified in using physical force to defend against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force under certain circumstances.
That does not give someone unlimited permission to fight. Whether self-defense applies depends on the circumstances, including the threat faced, the amount of force used, and the conduct of the individuals involved.
In our hypothetical restaurant confrontation, I would want to know who initiated the physical contact, whether the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary, and whether the response was legally justified.
Perhaps a nearby business captured the confrontation on its security cameras. Perhaps witnesses saw the events leading up to the fight. Perhaps the police report describes only what happened after the injured person was already on the ground.
Each of those details could affect how the case is evaluated.
The same basic principle applies to the hypothetical baseball incident. Watching someone suffer an injury tells us that something happened. It does not necessarily tell us everything we need to know about criminal responsibility.
That is why I examine the circumstances surrounding an alleged assault rather than treating the initial accusation as the final word.
Facing Criminal Assault Charges in Queens, NY?
Watching Pete Alonso take a 94.6-MPH fastball to the helmet is a reminder of how quickly an ordinary moment can turn into something serious. Fortunately, Alonso avoided a major injury, and the incident did not become the kind of intentional assault scenario we have been discussing.
Outside a baseball stadium, however, people can find themselves facing criminal charges after an argument, physical confrontation, or split-second decision that results in someone getting hurt.
An arrest is not a conviction, and an accusation does not eliminate the government’s burden of proof.
As a criminal defense lawyer in Queens, NY, I examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense, the available evidence, the prosecution’s legal theory, and any defenses that may apply.
If an argument, physical confrontation, or assault allegation has turned into something more serious, ive my office a call to make an appointment. I’ll anaylize the facts of your case and discuss what I feel is the best defense possible for your charge.
Jeffrey D. Cohen, ESQ
Gun Charge Lawyer in Queens, NY
The Law Offices of Jeffrey D. Cohen — We Stand By You.
Call my office today, at (718) 275-5900
