 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walls v. State3/14/2000
ault has added the words " . . . with a deadly weapon . . . ." This suggests a statutory scheme where conduct which is simple assault under section 97-3-7(1)(a) becomes aggravated assault under section 97-3-7(2)(b) when "done with a deadly weapon." The scheme is completed when we realize that a subsequent subsection of the simple assault definition includes the negligent injury to another with a deadly weapon. No evidence suggests or even hints that [the defendant] acted negligently. Hutchinson, 594 So. 2d at 19 (citations omitted).
The court then held that Mississippi's statutory scheme precluded an intentional assault with a deadly weapon from ever being simple assault. Id. at 20 (emphasis added). In arriving at this conclusion, the court noted that "the statute draws a distinction between intentionally inflicted bodily injury, which is simple assault, and a like, intentionally inflicted injury 'with a deadly weapon,' which is defined as aggravated assault." Id. The court went on to hold that " he further distinction between negligently inflicted injury with a deadly weapon, which are simple assaults, and intentionally inflicted bodily injuries with a deadly weapon, which are aggravated assaults, confirms this view." Id. The court concluded that the defendant's use of a deadly weapon removed the case from our simple assault statute. Hutchinson, 594 So. 2d at 20. Accordingly, under Mississippi law, " nce a deadly weapon is introduced, the distinction between simple and aggravated assault, as defined by Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-3-7(1) and (2), hinges upon whether the injuries were inflicted negligently or intentionally." Jackson, 684 So. 2d at 1230 (citing Hutchinson, 594 So. 2d at 20)).
. The majority states that "a knife is a device whose designed purpose, when used as a weapon, is to cut or stab. There is no evidence in this record that Walls attempted to inflict any injury on Kesler in this manner." As such , the majority concludes that "there was no proof that this knife was constructed in such a way that the handle constituted a particularly dangerous bludgeoning tool." I disagree. Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the majority's reference to this weapon as a mere "knife." This particular weapon would be more appropriately labeled as a "dagger" or a "dirk." The weapon used in this case was not the type that could easily be mistaken for a pocket knife. Nor could it ever be mistaken as a common kitchen utensil that characteristically has a wooden end. A mere inspection of the photographs of this weapon clearly shows that the handle of this knife, when used as a bludgeoning tool, certainly was capable of producing serious bodily injury as to constitute a deadly weapon within the meaning of the statute. Walls's weapon that he used to assault Kesler was a large, long double-edged Willis and Fink knife with a decorative gold metal end, containing several pointed tips, any of which could produce serious bodily injury. (See the attached exhibit.) This was no ordinary knife. Thus, just as a pistol used to "pistol whip" a person would still be classified as a deadly weapon despite the fact that the pistol was "not used for its designed purpose," or as a hammer's end would still be classified as a deadly weapon, a knife handle such as the one here, used in the manner it was here, should also be classified as a deadly weapon. Therefore, I disagree with the majority's statement that "the method in which this knife was allegedly used renders it essentially indistinguishable from any other blunt instrument capable of being wielded as a weapon." For one thing, this weapon was not a "blunt" instrument, and it certainly was distinguishable from other blunt instruments capable of being wielded as a weapon. Upon
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|