Commonwealth v. Lednum
2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 1365, 916 N.E.2d 416, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 722 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An object not inherently designed as a weapon can be legally classified as a 'dangerous weapon' based on the manner and circumstances of its use, and natural gas intentionally released into a confined space with occupants qualifies as such.
Facts:
- After learning his wife was seeking a divorce, Cedric R. Lednum's behavior frightened his wife, who changed the locks on their house.
- A few days later, on December 27, 2004, Lednum received permission from his wife to enter the house to use the bathroom, knowing that his two stepdaughters and three of their friends were sleeping inside.
- Lednum went to the basement, which had an exposed gas line, and opened the line, causing gas to fill the house.
- Lednum's stepdaughter awoke to a hissing sound and the smell of gas, and saw Lednum near the gas pipe.
- The stepdaughter alerted the other four occupants, and all five fled the house.
- Shortly after they escaped, a fire erupted in the basement.
- A fire investigator later determined that the fire was caused by the escaping gas.
- When emergency personnel arrived, they had to drag Lednum out of the burning basement, at which point he slashed his own wrist with a pocket knife.
Procedural Posture:
- Cedric R. Lednum was charged in a Massachusetts trial court with crimes including five counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.
- Following a jury trial, Lednum was acquitted of assault with intent to murder.
- The jury convicted Lednum on five counts of the lesser included offense of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and one count of willfully setting fire to a dwelling.
- Lednum, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does natural gas, when intentionally released into a house where several people are present, constitute a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of a conviction for assault by means of a dangerous weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Kantrowitz, J.
Yes. Natural gas, as used in this case, constituted a dangerous weapon. The law recognizes two categories of dangerous weapons: those that are dangerous per se (e.g., firearms) and objects that are 'dangerous as used'. The determination for the latter category rests on the specific features of the object and the circumstances of its use. Here, the defendant uncapped a gas line and turned it on, releasing gas into a home where he knew several people were sleeping. The gas was entirely under his control and used in a manner foreign to its intended purpose. Citing historical case law recognizing the inherent dangers of escaping gas, the court concluded that the defendant's actions of knowingly filling the house with gas transformed it into a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether he physically prevented the victims from escaping.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the 'dangerous as used' doctrine for weapons under Massachusetts law. It establishes that an intangible substance like natural gas can be legally considered a weapon when manipulated to create a life-threatening environment. This precedent broadens the scope of assault with a dangerous weapon charges, allowing prosecutors to apply it to cases involving the misuse of common household utilities or other substances not traditionally seen as weapons. The court's focus on the defendant's control over the substance and the peril created, rather than the object's physical form, will guide future analyses in similar cases.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Lednum