Commonwealth v. Potts
884 S.W.2d 654, 1994 Ky. LEXIS 106, 1994 WL 528541 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the evidence is undisputed that an ordinary object was used in a manner that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, the determination of whether it constitutes a 'dangerous instrument' is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- On June 13, 1991, Phillip Potts went to his girlfriend's residence and discovered her in bed with another man.
- After the other man departed, Potts assaulted his girlfriend, Joyce Purvis.
- During the assault, Potts hit Purvis in the face with his fist, kicked her side while wearing steel-toed work shoes, and hit her over the head with a clock-radio and a lamp.
- Potts also beat Purvis on the legs with a stick and stabbed her in the thigh and pelvic/vaginal area with a pair of scissors.
- A subsequent hospital examination revealed that Purvis had suffered two black eyes, a fractured cheek, scalp lacerations, bruises, and puncture wounds.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip J. Potts was tried by a jury in the Jefferson Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- The jury convicted Potts of second-degree assault, and the court sentenced him to five years in prison.
- Potts, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the state's highest 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:
Did the trial court err by determining as a matter of law that the items used in an assault were 'dangerous instruments,' thereby precluding a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Spain, J.
No. The trial court did not err because the classification of an object as a 'dangerous instrument' becomes a question of law for the court when the undisputed evidence shows it is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and was used in such a manner. The court reasoned that second-degree assault only requires proof of 'physical injury,' not 'serious physical injury,' when a dangerous instrument is involved. While the determination is typically a jury question, it becomes a matter of law for the court when the instrument's dangerous capability and its manner of use are not in dispute. Citing precedents like Jones v. Commonwealth (shoes as a deadly weapon) and Bowman v. Commonwealth (scissors as a lethal weapon), the court concluded that under the circumstances of this case, the trial judge was correct to determine that steel-toed shoes and scissors were dangerous instruments as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Stumbo, J.
Justice Stumbo dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the line between the roles of the judge and jury in assault cases involving ordinary objects used as weapons. It empowers trial judges to decide, as a matter of law, that an item is a 'dangerous instrument,' which can prevent a defendant from receiving a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense. The ruling emphasizes that an object's potential to cause serious harm, rather than the actual harm inflicted, is the key factor. This precedent may strengthen the prosecution's position in similar cases by removing a potential factual defense from the jury's consideration.
