The issue before the Appeals Court was whether the chair was a “dangerous weapon.” The Appeals Court noted that in determining whether an item is a "dangerous weapon" under Massachusetts Law, it must be determined that the item is capable of producing “serious bodily injury.” I reaching this determination, a judge or jury is to consider the "nature and specific features of the object" and "the manner in which it was handled or controlled."
The Appeals Court considered that the trial evidence described that after being struck with the char the husband’s wrist "opened up" and bled profusely (because the husband was on blood-thinning medication). The injury left an abrasion one inch by two and one-half inches and required more than ten days to heal.
According to the Appeals Court, because the chair--as used-- caused serious injury, it amounted to a “dangerous weapon” for purposes of the charge of assault and battery by a dangerous weapon. It is conceivable (or perhaps likely) that the jury, in undertaking the same analysis as to the ladle incident, concluded that the ladle was not capable of producing serious bodily injury.
Moral of the Story: You should probably put your shoes away.
image courtesy: upklyak www.freepik.com/vectors/wood
