Panel considers whether Hydro Flask met dangerous-weapon standard in assault case
Loading...
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Everly Soto, defense counsel argued an aluminum or Hydro Flask could not fairly be characterized as a dangerous weapon absent evidence of serious injury; the Commonwealth argued that no particular injury threshold is required for 'as used' dangerous-weapon liability and pointed to video and photographic evidence. The court indicated a required-finding motion was allowed for one count earlier and the case was submitted.
Daniel Ciccarello, representing Everly Soto, told the court that the record does not support treating a Hydro Flask (or an aluminum bottle) as a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of assault and battery charges unless there is evidence it was capable of or actually caused serious injury. Ciccarello drew the panel’s attention to case law distinguishing per se dangerous weapons from items whose dangerousness depends on how they are used. "If the flask is not an inherent dangerous weapon ... you would have to look at whether or not it actually did produce ... a serious injury," he said.
Defense counsel also called the court’s attention to the videotape and transcript portions and argued that the water bottle—not the Hydro Flask—appeared to cause an injury under the evidence; he said a required-finding motion should have been allowed. The transcript records the bench noting a required-finding motion was allowed as to one count (the Hydro Flask) earlier in the proceedings.
Meghan Keane for the Commonwealth countered that when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the elements of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon are supported. Keane told the court the victim suffered a knot on the right side of the forehead and that the head also struck the driver’s door window. "No actual injury is required for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, especially as used," she said.
The panel asked questions about whether the injuries and video evidence supported a dangerous-weapon finding but did not announce a decision on the appeal in court; the matter was submitted.
