Commonwealth v. Sexton
425 Mass. 146, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 122, 680 N.E.2d 23 (1997)
Rule of Law:
An object, even if stationary and part of the environment, can be considered a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon if it is used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Czyzewski and a female companion went to a bar in Holyoke on the evening of August 28, 1992.
- Czyzewski played pool with Donald Sexton's wife and accused her of cheating when he returned to the table.
- Donald Sexton, agitated, approached Czyzewski three separate times, demanding an apology, and his brother, Everett Sexton, told Czyzewski he would stand by Donald if anything happened.
- Donald Sexton smashed a beer bottle on the bar, but was restrained, after which Everett Sexton, Donald Sexton, and Donald's wife left the bar.
- Shortly thereafter, a van with the Sextons and a third man pulled up alongside Czyzewski's car in the parking lot.
- Everett and Donald Sexton kicked in the passenger-side window of Czyzewski's car, and Everett reached in, attempting to pull Czyzewski through the shattered window.
- Czyzewski and his companion drove out of the parking lot but were forced to return due to low gas, with the Sextons' van following behind.
- Everett Sexton and Donald Sexton immediately approached Czyzewski, pushed and shoved him, and Everett restrained Czyzewski by pulling his jacket over his head, throwing him to the ground where Donald Sexton repeatedly banged Czyzewski’s head against the concrete pavement while Everett Sexton kicked him.
Procedural Posture:
- Everett Sexton was convicted in Superior Court on a joint venture theory of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and wilful and malicious destruction of property.
- Sexton appealed his convictions to the Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court affirmed his conviction for wilful and malicious destruction of property but reversed his conviction for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, concluding that concrete pavement did not qualify as a dangerous weapon as a matter of law.
- The Commonwealth filed an application for further appellate review with the Supreme Judicial 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 a stationary object, such as concrete pavement, qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of an assault and battery charge if it is used in a manner capable of inflicting serious bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Fried, J.
Yes, a stationary object like concrete pavement can qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' under G. L. c. 265, § 15A, if used in a manner capable of inflicting serious bodily harm. The court reversed the Appeals Court's decision, rejecting the notion that an object must be 'wieldable' or separate from the environment to be considered a dangerous weapon. The court reiterated its established precedent distinguishing between objects dangerous 'per se' and those dangerous 'as used,' classifying concrete pavement into the latter. The determination of whether an object is a dangerous weapon 'as used' turns on the 'circumstances surrounding the crime, the nature, size and shape of the object, and the manner in which it is handled or controlled.' The only explicit restriction on this categorization has been human body parts, which are not 'instrumentalities apart from the defendant's person.' The court found no logical reason to differentiate between using a broken slab of concrete as a weapon and using a fixed slab by forcibly striking a victim's head against it. Referencing decisions from other jurisdictions, the court emphasized that an item's dangerous propensities often depend 'entirely on its use,' not its mobility. Finally, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction on a joint venture theory, finding sufficient evidence of his intent and knowledge, as he continuously participated in the beating while his brother slammed the victim's head into the pavement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the interpretation of 'dangerous weapon' in Massachusetts, moving beyond traditional understandings of 'wieldable' objects to encompass stationary aspects of the environment. The ruling places greater emphasis on the manner of use and the potential for harm rather than the inherent nature or mobility of an object. This expansion of the statute's scope means that defendants who use their surroundings to inflict serious injury can face more severe penalties, reflecting the legislature's intent to invoke greater penalties for assaults threatening serious harm. It also clarifies that the 'dangerous as used' category is expansive, limited primarily by the exclusion of human body parts.
