context: However, in cases where the object is not inherently dangerous and has a non-violent, commonplace use, the government must prove that the actor actually used the object in a dangerous manner. This is an objective test, and has nothing to do with the actor's subjective intent to use the weapon dangerously.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 730 N.E.2d 318, 319
citation_a.parenthetical: "The dangerousness of an object that is not inherently dangerous turns on the manner in which it is used (objective test), not the intention of the actor when using it (subjective test)."
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Powell v. United States, 485 A.2d 596, 601 (D.C.1984) (rejecting appellant’s argument that “unless one is possessed with the specific intent to use an object offensively, it is not a dangerous weapon.”); Williamson, 445 A.2d at 977 (rejecting appellant’s argument that “where the weapon is not dangerous ‘per se,’ this court should require the government to prove a specific intent to cause physical injury to the victim, or an attempted battery.”); see also Commonwealth v. Connolly, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 424, 730 N.E.2d 318, 319 (2000) (“The dangerousness of an object that is not inherently dangerous turns on the manner in which it is used (objective test), not the intention of the actor when using it (subjective test).”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 485 A.2d 596, 601
citation_b.parenthetical: rejecting appellant's argument that "unless one is possessed with the specific intent to use an object offensively, it is not a dangerous weapon."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Powell v. United States, 485 A.2d 596, 601 (D.C.1984) (rejecting appellant’s argument that “unless one is possessed with the specific intent to use an object offensively, it is not a dangerous weapon.”); Williamson, 445 A.2d at 977 (rejecting appellant’s argument that “where the weapon is not dangerous ‘per se,’ this court should require the government to prove a specific intent to cause physical injury to the victim, or an attempted battery.”); see also Commonwealth v. Connolly, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 424, 730 N.E.2d 318, 319 (2000) (“The dangerousness of an object that is not inherently dangerous turns on the manner in which it is used (objective test), not the intention of the actor when using it (subjective test).”).