State ex rel. T.M.
2012 WL 5933475, 12 La.App. 5 Cir. 436, 105 So. 3d 969 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a general intent crime like aggravated battery, the requisite criminal intent can be established when the circumstances indicate the offender must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from their act. Furthermore, an ordinary item can be considered a 'dangerous weapon' if, in the manner it is used, it is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Facts:
- On the morning of Friday, November 11, 2011, L.A., a 14-year-old eighth grader at Harry S. Truman Middle School, was in P.E. class.
- T.M. walked past L.A. and 'dapped' L.A.’s hand with her gloved, partially-opened hand, causing L.A. to feel a sting and then notice her hand was bloody from a straight, narrow laceration about one inch long.
- Also on November 11, 2011, T.M. approached D.D., a sixth grader, and 'dapped her off' with a closed, gloved hand, resulting in D.D. noticing a straight, narrow laceration about two inches long on her right wrist.
- After cutting D.D., T.M. immediately put pressure on D.D.’s wound, accompanied D.D. to the office, and stated, 'she didn’t know a pencil sharpener razor could cut somebody.'
- T.M. later acknowledged that she had also cut L.A.
- Photographs of L.A.’s right hand (taken November 14, 2011) and D.D.’s right wrist (taken November 11, 2011) showed the lacerations.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 22, 2011, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed two delinquency petitions in juvenile court against T.M., alleging aggravated battery with a razor blade upon D.D. and L.A.
- On January 6, 2012, T.M. denied the allegations of both petitions.
- On February 29, 2012, after a full trial, the juvenile court judge adjudicated T.M. delinquent as charged in both petitions.
- On March 22, 2012, the trial judge entered a judgment of disposition, imposing on each count a sentence of six months in the Office of Juvenile Justice, suspended, and placing T.M. on two years active probation with special conditions.
- On April 11, 2012, the juvenile court granted T.M.'s motion for appeal, bringing the case before the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.
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 the State present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile committed aggravated battery, specifically by establishing the requisite general criminal intent and that a pencil sharpener razor blade, as used, constituted a dangerous weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Susan M. Chehardy
Yes, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that T.M. committed aggravated battery, as the evidence established the requisite general criminal intent and that the pencil sharpener razor blade, as used, constituted a dangerous weapon. The court applied the `Jackson v. Virginia` standard, which requires determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find that all elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Aggravated battery is defined as 'battery committed with a dangerous weapon,' and battery is the 'intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another' (La. R.S. 14:33, 14:34). First, the court found general criminal intent, noting that for general intent crimes, intent is shown by the very doing of the acts declared criminal. T.M. held a razor blade in a gloved hand and used the pretense of a high-five to cut her classmates, indicating she was aware the blade could inflict injury and that injury was reasonably certain to result. Second, the court determined that the 'pencil sharpener razor blade' constituted a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon is 'any instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm' (La. R.S. 14:2(A)(3)). The court emphasized that virtually any item, no matter how innocuous, can be considered a dangerous weapon based on its manner of use. Since T.M. used the blade to cut the victims' skin and cause them to bleed, the trial court's finding that it was a dangerous weapon was affirmed. Therefore, all elements of aggravated battery were proven.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the threshold for establishing both general criminal intent and the 'dangerous weapon' element for aggravated battery. It reinforces that intent can be inferred from the objective circumstances and actions of a defendant, eliminating the need to prove a subjective desire for severe harm for general intent crimes. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the definition of a 'dangerous weapon,' establishing a contextual standard where ordinary objects can become dangerous based solely on their harmful use. This precedent provides guidance for prosecuting cases involving non-traditional weapons and helps in juvenile delinquency proceedings where specific intent might be harder to prove, emphasizing accountability for actions that foreseeably lead to harm.
