Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 519 S.E.2d at 101. 13 . Id. at 153, 519 S.E.2d at 101-02. 14 . Id. at 152-53, 519 S.E.2d at 101-02. 15 . We note that Davis may have wrapped the head of the sledgehammer in a towel. There is no evidence, however, that this lessened the tendency of a five-pound sledgehammer to cause death or great bodily injury if used to strike someone in the head. See State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 262, 493 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (1997) (“A deadly weapon is generally defined as any article, instrument or substance which is likely to produce death or great bodily harm."); Commonwealth v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095, 1100 (Pa.Super.1997) (categorizing a sledgehammer as a deadly weapon when used upon a vital part of the body such as the head). 16 . See State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 550, 446 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 484, 415 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process (B) holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon (C) holding the intentional use of a dangerous instrumentality does not support the allegation of mere criminal negligence (D) holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct (E) holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort
Output (English): holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort