People v. Carter
53 N.Y.2d 113, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Any instrument, article, or substance, regardless of its intended purpose or inherent dangerousness, becomes a 'dangerous instrument' under the Penal Law if it is used in a manner that renders it readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Facts:
- On February 26, 1978, the defendant and his girlfriend, Frances Coleman, began to quarrel while driving in a car.
- The defendant pulled the car over, and Coleman exited and began to walk away.
- The defendant assaulted Coleman, first striking her with his fists, which caused her to fall to the pavement.
- While Coleman was helpless on the ground, the defendant, who was wearing rubber boots, kicked and 'stomped' on her head and face several times.
- As a result of the attack, Coleman fell into a coma and, at the time of the trial, remained in a comatose state with no expectation of improvement.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with attempted murder and assault in the first degree.
- Following a jury trial in the court of first instance, the defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of first-degree assault.
- The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), arguing that the rubber boots he wore could not be considered a 'dangerous instrument'.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the defendant's conviction.
- The defendant was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, 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:
Does a rubber boot constitute a 'dangerous instrument' under the New York Penal Law when used to stomp on a person's head?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
Yes, a rubber boot constitutes a 'dangerous instrument' under the New York Penal Law when used to stomp on a person's head. The statutory definition of a 'dangerous instrument' focuses on how an object is used, not its inherent nature. The law specifies that any 'instrument, article or substance' becomes a dangerous instrument if, 'under the circumstances in which it is used,' it is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. This 'use-oriented approach' means an otherwise innocuous object can become a dangerous instrument based on its temporary application. Citing prior cases where items like a handkerchief and leather boots were deemed dangerous instruments, the court found the evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the defendant's rubber boots, when used to stomp on the victim's head with tremendous force, were readily capable of causing serious physical injury and thus qualified as a dangerous instrument.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'use-oriented' approach for defining a 'dangerous instrument' in New York criminal law. It establishes that nearly any object can be considered a weapon for the purposes of an aggravated assault charge, depending on the manner and context of its use. This broad interpretation provides prosecutors with significant latitude to charge higher-level offenses even when a conventional weapon is not involved, shifting the legal focus from the object itself to the defendant's actions and the potential for harm.
