Opinion ID: 2304125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon

Text: We first address defendant's argument that the trial justice erred in concluding that the boom box was a dangerous weapon. The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence presented during the trial to prove that the boom box was used as a dangerous weapon. While it is true that a boom box cannot properly be classified as a dangerous weapon per se, such an object (like many others) may become a dangerous weapon depending upon the manner of its use. State v. Bolarinho, 850 A.2d 907, 910 (R.I.2004) (Although many objects, including knives and firearms, are inherently dangerous weapons, an assault with a dangerous weapon may arise when the object used in the assault is not per se a dangerous weapon if it appears that the object was used in such a way that it had the capability of producing serious bodily harm.) (internal quotation marks omitted). When an object is employed in such a manner that serious bodily harm could have resulted, an assault with a dangerous weapon has been committed, whether or not injury occurs. Id. ; see also State v. Gore, 820 A.2d 978, 980 (R.I.2003) (mem.); State v. Froais, 653 A.2d 735, 737 (R.I. 1995). The severity of the injuries suffered by the victim is not a determinative factor in determining whether an object was used as a dangerous weapon; as we have previously stated, [t]he test is not whether serious bodily injury results from the assault, but whether the object was so used that serious bodily injury may have resulted. Gore, 820 A.2d at 980 (emphasis in original). The defendant cites State v. Ashness, 461 A.2d 659 (R.I.1983), in support of his argument that, because the boom box was thrown from several feet away, it should not be considered a dangerous weapon. [8] Relying on that case, he argues that the boom box should have been classified as a dangerous weapon only if he had struck her with it while holding it in his hands. We do not view Ashness as being at all supportive of defendant's argument. In Ashness, this Court reaffirmed the requirement that, in order to constitute an assault with a dangerous weapon, it is necessary that the weapon should be presented at the party intended to be assaulted, within the distance at which it may do execution. Ashness, 461 A.2d at 665 (quoting State v. Baker, 20 R.I. 275, 278, 38 A. 653, 654 (1897)). [9] The Court in that case went on to describe this element of the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon as the actual present ability of the defendant to inflict harm on the victim   . Ashness, 461 A.2d at 665. In our judgment, Ashness does not even remotely support defendant's argument on appeal. In Ashness, the defendant argued that he did not commit assault with a dangerous weapon because, although he was holding a gun during the robbery, he never pointed his weapon at the victim or placed him in fear of bodily harm. This Court noted that the defendant was standing within five feet of the victim and that, although the defendant never actually threatened the victim directly, the victim was certainly within range of the defendant's weapon. See id. The Court in Ashness ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the gunman had the actual present ability to inflict bodily harm on [the victim]. Id. at 666. In the instant case, the trial justice similarly determined that defendant had the present ability to inflict bodily harm on Jane. The defendant was capable of striking Jane, who the trial justice found was standing about six feet away from him, with the boom box; the trial justice found that he did, in fact, intentionally strike her. We perceive nothing in the record that would cause us to decide that the trial justice clearly erred in reaching his conclusions, and we note that those conclusions were based entirely on the evidence presented at the trial. At the close of all the evidence, the trial justice weighed and evaluated the evidence presented by both sides, passed upon the credibility of the trial witnesses, and impartially engaged in the inferential process in the course of rendering his decision. The trial justice found that defendant was not a credible witness; he instead accepted the mutually consistent accounts [10] of Jane and her mother, both of whom testified that defendant looked directly at Jane before throwing the fourteen-pound, hard-plastic boom box directly at Jane's head from a distance of less than six feet. Although Jane was able to duck, the boom box nevertheless struck her back, leaving a mark. The trial justice described Jane as being a quite slight young girl. There is no indication in the record that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived relevant and material evidence in determining that the boom box could have caused Jane serious bodily harm if it had struck her head as defendant intended. In view of the evidence in the record and the pertinent principles of law, we have no basis for ruling that the trial justice's conclusion was in clear error.