Title: Thompson v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 080445
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 27, 2009

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
WAYNE THOMPSON 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.   Record No. 080445 
JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
February 27, 2009 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
The appellant, Wayne Thompson, was convicted in a bench 
trial in the Circuit Court of Arlington County of violating Code 
§ 18.2-308.2(A) by carrying concealed about his person, as a 
convicted felon, what is generally known as a "butterfly knife."  
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the evidence was 
sufficient to establish that Thompson's butterfly knife is a 
"weapon of like kind" to those weapons enumerated in Code 
§ 18.2-308(A).  We conclude the evidence was not sufficient and 
will therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals 
affirming Thompson's conviction.  
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
In accordance with established principles of appellate 
review, we state the facts adduced at trial in the light most 
favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party in the 
trial court.  Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 303, 601 
S.E.2d 555, 558 (2004); Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573, 
576, 562 S.E.2d 139, 140 (2002).  We also accord the 
Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from 
the evidence.  Riner, 268 Va. at 303, 601 S.E.2d at 558; 
Armstrong, 263 Va. at 576, 562 S.E.2d at 140. 
On August 20, 2004, Officer Curtis Blake of the Arlington 
County Police Department's Tactical Unit was patrolling in the 
2400 block of South Shirlington Road, an area where Officer 
Blake had made multiple arrests for narcotics and weapons 
offenses.  While on patrol, Officer Blake observed Thompson 
"just hanging around" and subsequently get into a white cargo 
van.  Officer Blake informed other officers in the tactical unit 
about Thompson and the white van because Officer Blake suspected 
that Thompson might be relocating to a different area of the 
neighborhood to use drugs. 
The tactical unit officers began surveillance on the van as 
it traveled to and parked at a location about four blocks from 
where Officer Blake had first observed it.  Another officer, 
Greg Johnson, then watched three men exit the van and congregate 
"in close proximity to one another."  Thompson and one of the 
other men "appeared to be looking continuously in different 
directions."  Officer Johnson described their actions "as if 
something was going on they didn't want people to see."  The 
third man bent over, ignited a lighter, and started to smoke 
what Officer Johnson believed was crack cocaine.  Because 
Officer Johnson thought illegal narcotics were being ingested, 
2 
he notified the other officers of his observations, and they 
converged on the three men. 
As the officers began to move toward the van, the man who 
had been smoking the suspected crack cocaine fled, but Officer 
Johnson apprehended him a short distance away.  Officer Blake 
apprehended one of the other men.  
A third officer with the tactical unit, David W. Giroux, 
approached Thompson.  According to Officer Giroux, Thompson was 
peering around the back of the white van and trying to avoid 
detection.  Officer Giroux identified himself as a police 
officer and asked Thompson to show his hands.  As Officer Giroux 
advanced toward Thompson, he could not see Thompson's left hand.  
Consequently, Officer Giroux immediately handcuffed Thompson and 
"patted him down."  During the frisk for weapons, Officer Giroux 
felt "a long, flat, hard object" in the left front pocket of 
Thompson's pants.  Officer Giroux retrieved the object from 
Thompson's pocket and found that it was a "folding butterfly-
style knife."1 
Officer Giroux described the butterfly knife as  
a knife that basically almost – for lack of a better 
term, folds up upon itself. It's got a split handle, a 
two-part handle.  When it's open, the blade is 
exposed.  
 
This particular one has a sharp edge and then 
what we call a safe edge, a blunt edge. Some of them 
                     
1 A butterfly knife is also known as a balisong. 
3 
have a double-sided edge.  In its closed position, 
there's a latch on the bottom of the handle that goes 
across and secures the knife so that if it's in your 
pocket, it doesn't open up and cut your leg or your 
chest or whatever pocket it's in.  
 
To use it, you would remove the latch, you would 
flip it open like this (demonstrating) and then you 
twist it.  So it's designed for a one-handed operation 
with a flip of the wrist.  
 
Officer Giroux also testified that the handle measures four and 
three-quarters inches in length and the blade measures four 
inches in length.   
At trial, Officer Giroux explained, "edge weapons are very 
dangerous for police officers, due to the fact that they are 
easily concealed, and specifically ones like [Thompson's] that 
only require one hand to operate are very dangerous."  On cross-
examination, Officer Giroux testified he has seen "this exact 
type of knife" retrieved from gang members on several occasions.  
He admitted, however, that a butterfly knife may have uses other 
than as a weapon and can be used "[j]ust like a butter knife." 
Thompson testified that he had not only the butterfly 
knife, but also a pair of channel-lock pliers on his person when 
Officer Giroux frisked him.  Thompson claimed he had used both 
items earlier that day in his work as an auto mechanic.  Officer 
Giroux, however, did not recall a pair of pliers on Thompson's 
person when he conducted the weapons frisk. 
4 
In an amended indictment, Thompson was charged with 
"knowingly and intentionally carry[ing] about his person, hidden 
from common observation a dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, 
ballistic knife, or machete or razor or any weapon of like kind, 
after having been previously convicted of a felony," in 
violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A).  The case proceeded to a 
bench trial.2  At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, 
Thompson moved to strike the evidence based on the decision in 
Delcid v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 14, 526 S.E.2d 273 (2000).  
Thompson argued the Commonwealth failed to prove the butterfly 
knife was one of the weapons enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A) 
and it was not a weapon of like kind because the Commonwealth 
did not establish that Thompson intended to use the butterfly 
knife as a weapon.  The trial court denied Thompson's motion to 
strike.  
At the close of the trial, Thompson renewed his motion to 
strike the evidence.  The trial court denied the motion, finding 
that the butterfly knife "looks like a weapon, it's the 
identical – virtually, the identical butterfly knife described 
                     
2 In a pretrial motion, Thompson moved to suppress the 
butterfly knife, arguing that the tactical unit officers did not 
have reasonable articulable suspicion that Thompson was engaged 
in criminal activity and was armed and dangerous.  Thus, 
according to Thompson, the "stop and frisk" violated the Fourth 
Amendment.  The trial court denied Thompson's motion to 
suppress. 
5 
in Delcid."  That fact coupled with the circumstances 
surrounding the discovery of the butterfly knife convinced the 
court to find Thompson guilty of violating Code § 18.2-308.2(A). 
Thompson appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia.  In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed 
the trial court's judgment.  Thompson v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. 
App. 205, 224, 656 S.E.2d 409, 418 (2008).  Among other things, 
Thompson claimed the evidence was insufficient to sustain his 
conviction.3  The Court of Appeals, utilizing the analytical 
framework established in Farrakhan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177, 
639 S.E.2d 227 (2007), first concluded the butterfly knife is 
not one of the weapons enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A).  
Thompson, 51 Va. App. at 220, 656 S.E.2d at 416.  The Court of 
Appeals then determined the butterfly knife is, however, a 
" 'weapon' within the meaning of Code § 18.2-308.2."  Id. at 
222, 656 S.E.2d at 417.  In the final step of the analysis, the 
Court of Appeals held that the physical characteristics of the 
                     
3 Thompson also asserted the trial court erred in denying 
his motion to suppress.  The Court of Appeals found "the 
totality of the circumstances supported [Officer] Giroux's 
belief that [Thompson] had engaged, or was about to engage, in 
criminal activity."  Thompson, 51 Va. App. at 215-16, 656 S.E.2d 
at 414.  The Court of Appeals further concluded that Officer 
"Giroux's objectively reasonable apprehension that [Thompson] 
might pose a danger to the police made the officer's use of 
handcuffs a reasonable measure of protection" and the frisk for 
weapons was justified by the officer's reasonable belief that 
Thompson might be armed and dangerous.  Id. at 217, 656 S.E.2d 
at 414-15.  
6 
butterfly knife support the "trial court's conclusion that 
[Thompson's] knife, which closely resembled the knife in Delcid, 
was a 'weapon of like kind' to a 'dirk.' "  Id. at 223-24, 656 
S.E.2d at 418.  
Now, on appeal to this Court, the dispositive issue raised 
by Thompson is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the 
evidence sufficient to prove the butterfly knife "is a weapon 
described in Code § 18.2-308(A)."4 
ANALYSIS 
Under the provisions of Code § 18.2-308.2(A), it is 
unlawful for 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 subsection A of 
[Code] § 18.2-308."  As relevant to the butterfly knife at issue 
in this appeal, the weapons listed in Code § 18.2-308(A) include 
"any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, 
machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or 
blackjack; . . . or . . . any weapon of like kind as those 
enumerated in this subsection." 
To convict Thompson of violating Code § 18.2-308.2(A), the 
Commonwealth had to prove, among other things, that the 
                     
4 Thompson also contends the Court of Appeals erred in 
affirming the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.  
Since the question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is 
dispositive, we will not address that assignment of error. 
7 
butterfly knife found in his pocket is one of the specifically 
proscribed items or a "weapon of like kind."  Code § 18.2-
308(A); see also Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230. 
" 'It is elementary that the burden is on the Commonwealth to 
prove every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable 
doubt.' "  Bishop v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 9, 12, 654 S.E.2d 
906, 908 (2008) (quoting Powers v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 386, 
388, 177 S.E.2d 628, 629 (1970)).  "When reviewing the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court 
will affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or 
without evidence to support it."  Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 
Va. 144, 148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citations omitted).  
The construction of a statute, however, is a question of law 
reviewed de novo on appeal. Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 180, 639 
S.E.2d at 229.  
In accordance with the analytical framework established in 
Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230, we first conclude 
the evidence in this record does not show that Thompson's 
butterfly knife is one of the weapons listed in Code § 18.2-
308(A).5  Nor does the Commonwealth claim otherwise.  Therefore, 
                     
5 A "dirk" is "'a long straight-bladed dagger' " or " 'a 
short sword.' "  Wood v. Henry County Public Schools, 255 Va. 
85, 95 n.6, 495 S.E.2d 225, 261 n.6 (1998) (quoting Webster's 
Third New International Dictionary 642 (1981)).  A "bowie knife" 
is " 'a large hunting knife adapted [especially] for knife-
fighting' " with a "'10 to 15 inch[] long'" blade.  Id.  
8 
we must next consider whether Thompson's butterfly knife is a 
"weapon," by determining whether the evidence demonstrates that 
it is "designed for fighting purposes" or "commonly understood 
to be a 'weapon.' "  Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 
230; accord Harris v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 409, 415, 650 S.E.2d 
89, 92 (2007). 
With regard to that question, Thompson argues the trial 
court made no finding that the butterfly knife is "designed for 
fighting purposes" or is "commonly understood to be a weapon."6  
In fact, Thompson claims the only evidence presented at trial as 
to whether his butterfly knife is a weapon was Officer Giroux's 
testimony that the butterfly knife is an "edge weapon," can be 
operated with one hand, and is sometimes carried by gang 
members.  According to Thompson, if these are the criteria for a 
weapon, then such items as "Swiss Army knives, [B]oy [S]cout 
knives, steak knives and butter knives could all be considered 
prohibited weapons."  Thompson also points out that Officer 
                                                                  
(quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 262).  A 
"switchblade knife" is " 'a pocketknife having the blade spring-
operated so that pressure on a release catch causes it to fly 
open.' "  Id.  (quoting Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary 2314).  A "ballistic knife" is " 'any knife with a 
detachable blade that is propelled by a spring-operated 
mechanism.' "  Id.  (quoting Code § 18.2-308(N)). 
6 As Thompson notes, the trial court, however, entered its 
judgment of guilt and sentenced Thompson before this Court 
decided Farrakhan. 
9 
Giroux admitted that the butterfly knife could have "non-weapon 
uses."   
The Commonwealth counters by relying on the definition of 
"weapon" used by the Court of Appeals in Delcid:  " 'An 
instrument of offensive or defensive combat:  something to fight 
with.' "  32 Va. App. at 18, 526 S.E.2d at 275 (quoting 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1326 (1977)).  Continuing, 
the Commonwealth points to Officer Giroux's testimony concerning 
the physical characteristics of Thompson's butterfly knife and 
its design allowing "one-handed operation with a flip of the 
wrist."  Officer Giroux, argues the Commonwealth, also testified 
that edge weapons like the butterfly knife are carried by gang 
members and are especially dangerous for police officers because 
they are easy to conceal and operate.  
The Commonwealth is correct – Thompson's butterfly knife is 
a "weapon" because the evidence at trial concerning the knife's 
physical characteristics and method of operation established 
that it is "designed for fighting purposes" and is "commonly 
understood to be a 'weapon.' "  Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 
S.E.2d at 230; accord Harris, 274 Va. at 415, 650 S.E.2d at 92; 
see also Taylor v. McManus, 661 F. Supp. 11, 13 (E.D. Tenn. 
1986) ("the Balisong or 'butterfly' knife originated in the 
Philippines several hundred years ago . . . . [T]he exotic knife 
has some utilitarian use, [but] it is most often associated with 
10 
the martial arts and with combat") (citations omitted); State v. 
Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Mo. 1990) (describing a butterfly 
knife as "a martial arts weapon with handles that fold away from 
the blade"); City of Columbus v. Dawson, 501 N.E.2d 677, 679 
(Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (allowing a police officer to testify that 
the knife at issue was "a balisong fighting knife, commonly 
known as a butterfly knife").  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals 
did not err in holding the evidence was sufficient to support 
the conclusion that the butterfly knife concealed in Thompson's 
pocket is "a bladed instrument designed for fighting purposes" 
and thus qualifies as a "weapon" within the meaning of Code 
§ 18.2-308(A).  Thompson, 51 Va. App. at 222, 656 S.E.2d at 417.  
The next step in the analysis is "to determine if the item 
possesses such similar characteristics to the enumerated items 
in the Code § 18.2-308(A) such that its concealment is 
prohibited."  Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230.  The 
Court of Appeals, in both Thompson and Delcid, concluded that a 
butterfly knife is a "weapon of like kind" to a "dirk."  See 
Thompson, 51 Va. App. at 224, 656 S.E.2d at 418; Delcid, 32 Va. 
App. at 18, 526 S.E.2d at 275.  Further, the Commonwealth argues 
in this appeal that the trial court correctly determined that 
Thompson's butterfly knife is of like kind to a dirk.  We do not 
agree. 
11 
The phrase "of like kind" in Code § 18.2-308(A) is not 
defined in the statute.  Thus, we give the phrase its ordinary 
meaning, considering the context in which it is used.  Jones v. 
Commonwealth, 276 Va. 121, 125, 661 S.E.2d 412, 414 (2008).  The 
term "like" is defined as "[e]qual in quantity, quality, or 
degree; corresponding exactly[; s]imilar or substantially 
similar."  Black's Law Dictionary 947 (8th ed. 2004).  The term 
"kind" is defined as "a group united by common traits or 
interests."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1243 
(1993).  Considering these definitions, we hold that, in order 
to prove the particular knife found in Thompson's pocket is "of 
like kind," the Commonwealth had to prove that it is 
"substantially similar" to one of the weapons enumerated in Code 
§ 18.2-308(A). 
In Delcid, the Court of Appeals described the butterfly 
knife at issue as a knife 
consist[ing] 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. 
 
32 Va. App. at 17, 526 S.E.2d at 274.  While that description 
also accurately depicts the butterfly knife found in Thompson's 
12 
pocket, those physical characteristics alone do not factually 
demonstrate that it is substantially similar to a dirk.  
We have previously defined a "dirk" as " 'a long straight-
bladed dagger' " or " 'a short sword.' "  Wood v. Henry County 
Public Schools, 255 Va. 85, 95 n.6, 495 S.E.2d 225, 261 n.6 
(quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 642 
(1981)); see also Richards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 242, 246 
n.2, 443 S.E.2d 177, 179 n.2 (1994) (defining a dirk as "any 
stabbing weapon having two sharp edges and a point, including 
daggers, short swords, and stilettos").  A "dagger" is "a short 
knife used for stabbing," and its definition refers to a 
"stiletto."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary 570 
(1993).  However, the definition of a "stiletto" is not 
particularly helpful, as it is defined as "a slender dagger with 
a blade that is thick in proportion to its breadth."  Id. at 
2243.  The definition of a "sword" is more instructive:  "a 
weapon with a long blade for cutting or thrusting set in a hilt 
usually terminating in a pommel and often having a tang or a 
protective guard where the blade joins the handle."  Id. at 
2314. 
Thompson's butterfly knife itself and its observable 
physical characteristics are the only evidence in the record 
relevant to the factual question whether that particular knife 
is of like kind to a dirk or one of the other enumerated weapons 
13 
in Code § 18.2-308(A).  Upon comparing its physical 
characteristics to those of either a dagger or a sword, both of 
which are included in the definition of a dirk, see Wood, 255 
Va. at 95 n.6, 495 S.E.2d at 261 n.6, it is obvious, however, 
that Thompson's butterfly knife is not substantially similar to 
a dirk.  While the butterfly knife's blade is four inches long 
and has a sharp point at the end of the blade, it contains only 
one sharp edge instead of two and has no protective guard 
between the blade and the handle.  Without two sharp edges and a 
protective guard, we conclude that the butterfly knife is not 
designed for stabbing purposes like a dagger, but rather for 
cutting purposes. 
On the other hand, a sword's blade may be used for cutting 
or thrusting.  However, one important feature of a sword is for 
the blade to be set in a hilt.  Thompson's butterfly knife does 
not have a hilt.  Instead, it is more akin to a pocketknife, in 
that the blade is movable from its handle, and it folds into 
itself. 
We thus conclude the evidence was insufficient as a matter 
of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the butterfly 
knife found in Thompson's pocket is "of like kind" to a dirk or 
any other weapon enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A).  To make that 
factual determination, the trial court relied solely on the 
Court of Appeals' decision in Delcid and the circumstances under 
14 
which the police discovered the butterfly knife in Thompson's 
pocket to find otherwise.  But, as we explained in Farrakhan, 
"[s]ubsequent use or circumstances may not be considered in the 
definitional analysis of 'weapon.'"  273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d 
at 230.  Nor can such evidence be used to determine whether a 
particular weapon is "of like kind" to one of the weapons 
enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A). 
"We are required to construe Code § 18.2-308(A) strictly 
against the Commonwealth and to confine the statute to those 
offenses clearly proscribed by its plain terms."  Harris, 274 
Va. at 415, 650 S.E.2d at 92 (citing Harward v. Commonwealth, 
229 Va. 363, 365, 330 S.E.2d 89, 90 (1985) (penal statutes 
"cannot be extended by implication but must be confined to those 
offenses proscribed by the language employed")).  Accordingly, 
Thompson " 'is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt 
about the construction of a penal statute.'"  Id. (quoting 
Martin v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 298, 300–01, 295 S.E.2d 890, 892 
(1982)).  As we have stated previously, "[i]t is . . . the role 
of the General Assembly, not this Court, to craft any needed 
revisions to Code § 18.2-308(A) and to decide what items to 
include within the statute's proscription."  Id.  The General 
Assembly can certainly include a butterfly knife or balisong as 
one of the prohibited weapons enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A) 
if it is so inclined.  
15 
CONCLUSION 
Although the evidence is sufficient to prove that 
Thompson's butterfly knife is a "weapon," it is insufficient as 
a matter of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
particular knife at issue is "of like kind" to a dirk or any 
other weapon enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A).  The conclusion 
of the trial court, acting as the trier of fact, that Thompson's 
butterfly knife is "of like kind" to a dirk is plainly wrong and 
without evidence to support it.  See Code § 8.01-680.  For that 
reason, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
vacate Thompson's conviction under Code § 18.2-308.2(A), and 
dismiss the amended indictment. 
Reversed, vacated, and dismissed. 
16