Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the device was a tool for cutting cane and was not designed as a weapon. The district court denied the motion and appellant proceeded to trial on stipulated facts, preserving this issue for appeal. Because the record supports the district court's conclusion that appellant possessed a dangerous weapon on school property, we affirm. The application of undisputed facts to a criminal statute is a question of law reviewed de novo by this court. Appellant goes on to argue that, because he merely possessed the knife, it was not used in such a manner to make it a dangerous weapon.
Courts give a reasonable and sensible construction to criminal statutes.
The statute does not require that an object be designed only as a weapon. The knife in evidence supports the district court's finding that it was designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm. That the legislature intended to prohibit the possession on school property of this type of knife as a dangerous weapon is also supported by an exception to the statute. The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective. The exception for knife shows would be superfluous unless the legislature intended some knives to be included within the definition of prohibited dangerous weapons.