Opinion ID: 1802577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether defendant violated the condition of probation by possessing an offensive weapon.

Text: Defendant argues that ordinary pocket knives are not offensive or deadly weapons. He argues that there was no probationary condition which prohibited the possession of a pocket knife, rather it only prohibited offensive weapons. Defendant also contends that this probation condition had no reasonable relationship to the crime for which he was convicted. Although we have no statutory definition of offensive weapon, SDCL 22-1-2(10) defines a dangerous or deadly weapon as any firearm, knife or device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which is calculated or designed to inflict death or serious bodily harm, or by the manner in which it is used is likely to inflict death or serious bodily harm. Black's Law Dictionary defines offensive weapon as occasionally used in criminal law and statutes, a weapon primarily meant and adapted for attack and the infliction of injury, but practically the term includes anything that would come within the description of `deadly' or dangerous weapon. We conclude that the trial court's determination that a pocket knife was an offensive weapon, as contemplated by its own probation order, was not clearly erroneous. The use of the term offensive weapon used by the trial court in its condition of probation was sufficient to notify defendant that he could not conceal objects which by design were capable of causing injury, i.e., guns or knives. Also, defendant knew it was against the rules at the H.S.C. to carry a concealed weapon. Further, this condition certainly had a reasonable relationship to the crime for which defendant was committed because of the dangerous, assaultive nature of the crime. In conclusion, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding violations of probation and did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation. Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN and SABERS, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.