Timothy Paul Schaeffer v. State
268 P. 3d 1045, 2012 WY 9 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An object qualifies as a 'deadly weapon' for the purposes of an aggravated assault charge if, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, it is reasonably capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. Whether the weapon, such as a firearm or flare gun, is loaded is irrelevant, as the statute focuses on the fear induced in the victim.
Facts:
- Timothy Paul Schaeffer was involved in an altercation at a bar.
- During the altercation, Schaeffer waved a flare gun around.
- Schaeffer pointed the flare gun directly at certain individuals at close range.
- While brandishing the gun, Schaeffer threatened to shoot or kill everyone in the room.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Paul Schaeffer was charged with one count of aggravated assault and battery.
- The case was tried before a jury in a Wyoming district court, which is the trial court of general jurisdiction.
- On the second day of trial, Schaeffer requested substitute counsel, which the court denied.
- Following a disruptive outburst in which he cursed at the court and charged the bench, Schaeffer was physically restrained for the remainder of the trial.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Schaeffer guilty.
- Schaeffer's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the district court as untimely.
- Schaeffer, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, 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 an unloaded flare gun, when brandished in a threatening manner during an altercation, qualify as a 'deadly weapon' for the purposes of an aggravated assault and battery conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Voigt, Justice
Yes, an unloaded flare gun brandished in a threatening manner qualifies as a 'deadly weapon.' The statutory definition of a 'deadly weapon' includes any firearm or other instrument which, in the manner it is used, is reasonably capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The flare gun meets the definition of a firearm, as an officer testified it expels a projectile via an explosive that could cause severe injury or death. Furthermore, precedent holds that whether a firearm is loaded is immaterial for an aggravated assault charge, because the enhanced penalty addresses the greater degree of fear caused in the victim, who does not know the weapon's status. The victim's apprehension is the same regardless, and Schaeffer's threatening use of the flare gun was sufficient for a jury to find it was a deadly weapon.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad, functional definition of a 'deadly weapon,' prioritizing the victim's perception of fear and the objective danger created by a defendant's actions. By affirming that prosecutors do not need to prove a weapon was loaded, the court eases the evidentiary burden in aggravated assault cases. This interpretation solidifies the legal principle that the apparent capability of a weapon and the fear it reasonably instills are the central elements, rather than its immediate, actual ability to cause harm. This precedent will likely be used to support convictions where objects not traditionally seen as weapons are used in a threatening manner.
Unlock the full brief for Timothy Paul Schaeffer v. State