People v. B.M. (In re B.M.)
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 6 Cal.5th 528, 431 P.3d 1180 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an object not inherently deadly to qualify as a 'deadly weapon' in an aggravated assault charge, the defendant must have used the object in a manner not only capable of producing but also likely to produce death or great bodily injury, based on the actual use and not on speculation about potential harm.
Facts:
- On the morning of July 2, 2016, 17-year-old B.M. returned to her family's home after spending the night away and entered through a window after being unable to unlock the front door.
- Upon entering, B.M. confronted her sister Sophia in Sophia's bedroom about changed locks, expressing anger by yelling and throwing a phone at Sophia.
- B.M. then went downstairs to the kitchen, grabbed a six-inch metal knife (described as a dull butter knife with slight ridges on one side of its three-inch blade), and returned to Sophia's bedroom.
- Sophia, who had just gotten out of the shower and was only covered by a towel, quickly pulled a blanket over herself as B.M. approached with the knife because she was scared B.M. might hurt her.
- B.M. approached Sophia, who was lying on the bed with bent knees, and made several "downward" "slicing" motions with the knife in the area around Sophia's blanketed legs.
- B.M. applied moderate pressure (described as a "five or a six" out of ten) with the knife, hitting Sophia's blanketed legs "a few" times, but the knife did not pierce the blanket, nor did it poke, stab, or cause any injury to Sophia.
- B.M. later stated she only wanted to scare Sophia and had no intention of actually stabbing her.
Procedural Posture:
- A juvenile wardship petition was filed against B.M. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that her use of the butter knife against Sophia constituted assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245(a)(1).
- The juvenile court sustained the petition, finding B.M. had violated section 245(a)(1).
- B.M. appealed the juvenile court's order.
- The Court of Appeal rejected B.M.'s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her adjudication, affirming the juvenile court's ruling.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
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 substantial evidence support a finding that B.M.'s use of a butter knife to make slicing motions on her sister's blanket-covered legs constituted assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245(a)(1), which requires the object to be used in a manner 'likely to produce' death or great bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Liu, J.
No, substantial evidence does not support a finding that B.M.'s use of the butter knife was likely to produce death or great bodily injury. The court clarified that the standard for a deadly weapon, as established in People v. Aguilar, requires an object to be used in a manner not only capable of producing but also likely to produce death or great bodily injury, with 'likely' meaning a high probability, not just a mere possibility. The court emphasized that the determination must be based on evidence of how the defendant actually used the object, rejecting speculation about how it could have been used or what injury might have been inflicted if used differently. Considering the dull nature of the butter knife, B.M.'s limited use of it only on Sophia's blanket-covered legs, and the moderate pressure applied which caused no injury, the court concluded that B.M.'s actions were not likely to cause serious harm. The Court of Appeal's reliance on B.M.'s potential to cause injury to Sophia's face, or B.M.'s alleged lack of adeptness with a knife, was deemed impermissible conjecture rather than an assessment of actual use.
Concurring - Chin, J.
Yes, Justice Chin agreed that the evidence was insufficient to establish that B.M.'s use of the butter knife was likely to produce death or great bodily injury. He concurred with the majority with the understanding that the opinion does not definitively decide the precise meaning of the word 'likely' in the Aguilar standard beyond stating it means 'more than a mere possibility.' Justice Chin noted that a strict interpretation of 'likely' as 'probable' might conflict with past cases where deadly weapon findings were upheld despite injury not being highly probable. However, he concluded that under any plausible interpretation of 'likely,' B.M.'s actions—making a few slicing motions with a butter knife on Sophia's blanket-covered legs—did not constitute an act likely to produce great bodily injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the legal standard for determining whether an everyday object is used as a 'deadly weapon' in an aggravated assault, by unequivocally emphasizing the 'likely to produce' great bodily injury component of the test. The decision prevents courts from relying on speculative scenarios of potential harm and mandates an assessment based strictly on the defendant's actual manner of use. This clarification will likely raise the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in cases involving non-inherently dangerous objects, requiring concrete proof that the actual application of force or use of the object posed a high probability of serious injury. It reinforces the importance of factual specificity and discourages abstract inferences of danger, impacting how aggravated assault cases involving unusual weapons are litigated and judged.
