Case Name: Allen DELCID v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 2000-03-21
Citations: 32 Va. App. 14
Docket Number: Record No. 1994-98-4
Parties: Allen DELCID v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Court of Appeals Courts
Volume: 32
Pages: 14–22

Head Matter:
526 S.E.2d 273
Allen DELCID v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Record No. 1994-98-4.
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Alexandria.
March 21, 2000.
Robert W. Gookin, Arlington, for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BENTON, WILLIS and ANNUNZIATA, JJ.

Opinion:
WILLIS, Judge.
On appeal from his conviction in a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon after having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2, Allen Delcid contends that the trial court erred in holding that the knife he carried fell within the definition of a concealed weapon. See Code § 18.2-308(A). Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Code § 18.2-308.2(A) provides, in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for (i) any person who has been convicted of a felony . to knowingly and intentionally carry about his person, hidden from common observation, any weapon described in § 18.2-308 A.
Code § 18.2-308(A) forbids carrying about the person, hidden from common observation, "any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; . or . any weapon of like kind...." Code § 18.2-308(A).
Upon arresting Delcid, a previously convicted felon, for another offense, the police discovered upon his person, hidden from common observation, a "butterfly knife." The knife is not described in the record. However, it was displayed before the trial court, was received as an exhibit, and is physically a part of the record. We have examined it. The knife consists of a single blade with a two-part hinged handle, which folds to enclose the blade. A person holding one part of the closed handle can flip the other part open, leaving the blade exposed and locked, thus creating a straight-bladed knife approximately nine inches long. The blade is four inches long, with a sharp point. One edge of the blade is sharpened. The other is not.
The Commonwealth contended at trial that the knife was a dirk or a weapon of like kind. In Richards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 242, 246 n. 2, 443 S.E.2d 177, 179 n. 2 (1994), we defined a dirk as "any stabbing weapon, having two sharp edges and a point, including daggers, short swords, and stilettos." The trial court railed that the knife was "a dirk with one side . a one-sided, sharp edge of a dirk [which] falls within the statute that says any weapon of like kind.... " Delcid argues on appeal that the knife could not be a dirk, because it had but one sharp edge and was thus excluded from the definition of a dirk set forth in Richards.
"The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). "The determination of whether a particular knife falls within the meaning of a term used in the statute is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact." Richards, 18 Va.App. at 246 n. 2, 443 S.E.2d at 179 n. 2.
The knife does not fit the definition of a dirk established in Richards. Therefore, we must inquire whether it is a "weapon of like kind." To be so, it must first be a weapon. "Weapon" is a commonly used word. In construing the statute, we assume, in the absence of contrary expression, that the legislature intended that the word be given its usual and accepted meaning. See Stein v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 65, 69, 402 S.E.2d 238, 241 (1991). Webster's dictionary defines "weapon" thus:
An instrument of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1326 (1977). Common experience teaches that bladed instruments may be possessed and used for non-aggressive as well as aggressive purposes. In the former instance, they are deemed implements; in the latter, weapons. Any given bladed instrument may fall into either category or both, depending on the circumstances and purpose surrounding its possession and use. Thus, determination whether a given bladed instrument is an implement or a weapon requires consideration not only of the physical character of the instrument itself, but also of the circumstances surrounding its possession and use.
The knife in question is useful as a weapon of like kind to a dirk. Its fixed blade, sharp point, and single-sharpened edge afford unquestionable utility as a stabbing weapon, useful in the same manner as a dagger, stiletto, or dirk. Furthermore, when asked by Officer Heimberger whether "he had any weapons on him," Delcid replied "that he did, he had a knife in his pocket." The officer then removed from Delcid's pocket the butterfly knife that is the subject of this case. Officer Heimberger had come on the scene in response to a call from a 7-11 "for disorderly subjects refusing to leave." Arriving on the scene, he saw Delcid and another person who matched the description given in the complaint. Delcid had in his hand two beers, one of which was open. He discarded the beers upon the approach of the police car. These circumstances of disorder, productive of a police complaint, suggest aggressive conduct and intent. These circumstances, coupled with the physical characteristics of the knife and Delcid's own acknowledgment of it as a weapon, support the trial court's determination that the knife was a weapon of like kind to a dirk.
In Ricks v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 442, 499 S.E.2d 575 (1998), we held:
The trial judge erroneously relied on the purported purpose of Ricks' possession of the knife to convict Ricks of the offense.... [T]he language of the statute does not provide that the purpose for carrying the knife is relevant. Rather, the physical characteristics of the knife determine whether the knife is a weapon contemplated by the statute.
Id. at 445, 499 S.E.2d at 576.
As noted in the dissent, a criminal statute must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of the accused. Thus, carrying concealed a non-weapon does not violate Code § 18.2-308(A), even though that non-weapon may be "of like kind" to a dirk. For the offense to be committed, the object carried concealed must be a weapon. The purpose for which it is created and employed is a critical distinction between an implement and a weapon. Thus, while the specific purpose for which the item is possessed is not itself an element of the crimes defined by Code § 18.2-308(A) and 18.2-308.2, that purpose is one of the defining characteristics of the item in question.
Thus, the record supports the trial court's determination that the knife was a "weapon" described in Code § 18.2-308.2. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.