Owens, Michelle M.

English

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 30Number 2 Spring 2000 Article 62000Recent Developments: Handy v. State: PepperSpray May Be Classified as a Deadly or DangerousWeapon under Robbery with Deadly WeaponStatuteMichelle M. OwensFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationOwens, Michelle M. (2000) "Recent Developments: Handy v. State: Pepper Spray May Be Classified as a Deadly or DangerousWeapon under Robbery with Deadly Weapon Statute," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 30 : No. 2 , Article 6.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol30/iss2/6Recent Developments Handy v. State Pepper Spray May be Classified as a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon Und·er Robbery with Deadly Weapon Statute I n a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, as a matter oflaw, pepper spray or mace may be considered a deadly or dangerous weapon under the robbery with deadly weapon statute. Handy v. State, 357 Md. 685, 745 A.2d 1107 (2000). Furthermore, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to fmd, as a matter of fact, that a defendant's spraying of pepper spray into a person's eyes, causing substantial pain and injury during the course of a robbery, constituted robbery with a deadly weapon. In so holding, the intent of the legislature to prevent criminals, including robbers, from using pepper spray or mace in an open manner with an intent to injure victims is illustrated in this case. Harry Sparks ("Sparks"), an employee of the United States Postal Service, was approached by the petitioner, Mark Handy ("Handy"), while delivering mail on his usual route. Handy inquired into whether or not Sparks had any change of address cards. After Sparks responded in the negative and proceeded along his route, Handy suddenly sprayed Sparks in the eyes with pepper spray and wrestled Sparks to the ground. Handy then fled with Sparks's mailbag. Handy was convicted by ajury 30.2 U. Bait L.F. 66 By Michelle Owens in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, robbery, and wearing and carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure. Handy appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari and affirmed, but upon a slightly different analysis. The court began its analysis by considering whether pepper spray or mace may constitute a dangerous or deadly weapon for purposes of proving the crime of robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon. The court firmly rejected the court of special appeals's conclusion that such issue was to be resolved by the trier offact. Id. at 690, 745 A.2dat 1109. The court explained that the issue of whether an object can be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon under the appropriate test is·a matter oflaw for the court to decide. Subsequently, whether the criminal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon actually occurred becomes a factual matter to be determined by a trier offact. Id. at 690-91, 745 A.2d at 1109-10. The court of appeals addressed the questions oflaw properly before it by looking to the statute that Handy allegedly violated, Art. 27, Section 488 of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.). Id. at 691,745 A.2d at 1110. The robbery with deadly weapon statute provides, in pertinent part, that one "is guilty of a felony when convicted of robbery or attempted robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon." Id. Becausethe statute is worded in the disjunctive, the court held, the State need not prove that the weapon is dangerous and deadly, but instead, need only prove that a weapon is dangerous or deadly. Id. The court next examined the issue of what constitutes a dangerous or deadly weapon under section 488. In Brooks v. State, 314 Md. 585, 552 A.2d 872 (1989), the court adopted the "objective test," in which to be deadly or dangerous a weapon must be inherently of that character or must be used or useable in a manner that gives it that character. Id. at 691-92, 745 A.2d at 1110 (quoting Brooks v. State, 314 Md. 585, 552 A.2d 872 (1989)). Previous cases have determined that the term "dangerous or deadly weapon" encompasses those objects which are inherently dangerous or deadly, or that may be used in a dangerous or deadly manner; for example, an unloaded pi.stol and a starter's pistol. Handy, 357 Md. at 692-93, 745 A.2d at 1111 (citing Wallace v. Warden, 226 Md. 670, 174 A.2d 435 (1961)); Jackson v. State, 231 Md. 591, 191 A.2d 432 (1963)). In light of such cases, the court. recognized the development of a three-part objective test, only one part of which needs to be met, in deciding whether a weapon used to commit a robbery is dangerous or deadly. Id at 693, 745 A.2d at 1111. This three-part objective test dictates that an instrument is "deadly or dangerous" under section 488 when: (1) the instrument is designed or used in the course of destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy; (2) the instrument is immediately useable to inflict serious or deadly injury; or (3) the instrument is actually used in way to inflict serious or deadly injury. Id. Maryland courts have never been presented with the question of whether pepper spray could fall under the first category of weapons. Therefore, the court of appeals summarized case law from other jurisdictions holding that pepper spray, as a matter oflaw, may be a dangerous or deadly weapon. Id. at 696, 745 A.2d at 1113. For example, the Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Norris, held that pepper spray was a dangerous weapon under Michigan's statute due to the seriousness of the injuries that resulted from the weapon, such as extreme eye pain and irritation, burning sensations, and breathing difficulties. Id. at 696-97, 745 A.2d at 1113 (citing People v. Norris, 236 Mich. App. 411, 600 N.W.2d 658 (1999)). Consequently, the Court of Appeals of Maryland found pepper spray to be an instrument designed to injure an enemy, and thus it fits within the first category of the Brooks test. Id at 699,745 A.2d at 1114. In addition to finding that pepper spray fits within the first category, the court of appeals opined that instead of measuring the extent of actual injury, the mere potential for bodily harm suffices in order for the spray to be characterized as a deadly or dangerous weapon. Id. The court went on to examine pepper spray as a dangerous or deadly weapon under the second and third categories of the applicable test, namely, whether pepper spray was immediately useable to inflict serious or deadly injury, and whether the spray was in fact actually used to inflict such harm. Id. In the instant case, the use of pepper spray on Sparks caused him to suffer a temporary blinding and a painful burning sensation to his eyes for several hours. Id. at 700, 745 A.2d at 1115. As such, the second and third parts of the Brooks test were satisfied as well. The court concluded that, after applying the objective test as set forth in Brooks, the issue of whether an object may constitute a dangerous or· deadly weapon is a question of law for a court to decide. The court held, as a matter of law, that the use of the pepper spray constituted use of a dangerous or deadly weapon while in the course of committing a robbery. Additionally, the court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that Handy, as a matter of fact, used pepper spray in a dangerous or deadly manner. The evidence presented at trial supported the State's contention that Handy sprayed Recent Developments Sparks in the face with the pepper spray causing substantial injury to the victim while committing a robbery. With this holding, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has established a clear standard for trial courts to use when examining objects under the robbery with deadly weapon statute. In determining whether an object may be characterized as a deadly or dangerous weapon, trial courts must perform a comprehensive scrutiny, which includes separating those issues of law from those of fact. Whether or not an object may constitute a dangerous or deadly weapon will depend upon the nature of the object itself as well as how the object is actually used. For example, the legislature did intend to prevent criminals from using pepper spray or mace in a manner that combined an intent to injure while in the course of committing a robbery; however, the legislature did not intend to prevent citizens from protecting themselves by wearing pepper spray or mace in a concealed fashion. 30.2 U. Balt. L.F. 67 THE LA URENCE M. KA TZ COMMERCIAL LAW COLLECTION A fund honoring Dean Katz has been created to support a permanent Commercial Law Collection in the University of Baltimore Law Library. Your contributions to assist in the establishment of this $10,000 Endowment Fund are most welcome. Please make checks payable to: University of Baltimore Educational Foundation Please send to: Laurence M. Katz Commercial Law Collection University of Baltimore Educational Foundation 1304 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2789 Gifts to the Laurence M Katz Commercial Law Collection are tax deductible as allowed by law. 30.2 U. Bait L.F. 68 

Recent Developments: Handy v. State: Pepper Spray May Be Classified as a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon under Robbery with Deadly Weapon Statute

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2000&amp;context=lf

Recent Developments: Handy v. State: Pepper Spray May Be Classified as a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon under Robbery with Deadly Weapon Statute

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Baltimore School of Law