Joe Simon is excellent by any measure – reputation, results, communications, responsiveness & sensitivity, honesty, dedication, thoroughness, sincerity – our entire family was very pleased with his servi...
Dale Stoy
12/15/2018
While I have not used his services directly, I have referred several clients. All have been very pleased with his services. He is talented, well-connected and caring. He gets great results.
everything went exactly or better that i was told it would fantastic attorney!!!
In Michigan, an assault with a dangerous weapon is a serious criminal charge that carries substantial penalties, including lengthy prison sentences and significant collateral consequences. However, the term “dangerous weapon” is far more nuanced than many prosecutors—and even some defendants—initially understand. The legal definition of what constitutes a dangerous weapon has evolved through decades of case law, and this complexity creates critical opportunities for defense attorneys to challenge prosecution assumptions and protect their clients’ rights.
Michigan law defines assault with a dangerous weapon under MCL 750.82, which prohibits assaulting another person while armed with a dangerous weapon or article or device having the appearance of a dangerous weapon. The statute doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of what qualifies as “dangerous,” which means prosecutors often make interpretative leaps that defense attorneys can effectively challenge in court.
Certain items are considered inherently dangerous by their very nature and design. These include firearms, knives with blades exceeding specific lengths, brass knuckles, and other weapons designed primarily for inflicting harm. The prosecution has an easier burden with per se weapons because the dangerous nature is legally presumed. However, even with these items, defense attorneys can challenge whether the defendant actually possessed the weapon, whether they used it in the assault, or whether alternative charges might be more appropriate.
This category presents far greater opportunity for defense challenges. An instrumentality weapon is any object that can be used to cause death or serious bodily injury, but isn’t inherently designed as a weapon. Michigan courts have found the following to qualify as instrumentality weapons: bottles, rocks, chairs, baseball bats, hammers, shoes, keys, and even everyday household items. The critical distinction is not what the object is, but rather how it was used—or allegedly used—during the incident.
Experienced defense attorneys have observed consistent patterns in how prosecutors approach dangerous weapon allegations. Understanding these assumptions allows skilled defense counsel to systematically dismantle the prosecution’s case.
Prosecutors frequently assume that larger or heavier objects automatically constitute dangerous weapons. However, Michigan case law requires more than mere size. The object must have been used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, or the defendant must have intended for the victim to believe it could cause such harm. A large wrench lying on a table is not a dangerous weapon unless it was actually used or threatened as one during the assault.
Another common prosecutorial error involves assuming that because an object could theoretically cause harm, the defendant necessarily possessed it with dangerous intent. Michigan law requires that the defendant knowingly possessed the item and that the assault involved either actual use of the weapon or the display of it in a manner creating reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm. Without evidence of this knowledge and intent, the dangerous weapon element crumbles.
Prosecutors may argue that any contact with certain objects—even if accidental or incidental—constitutes assault with a dangerous weapon. Defense attorneys challenge this by focusing on causation. Did the object actually cause or contribute to the injury? Was it the primary means of assault, or was it merely present during an incident? These distinctions are crucial to defeating charges.
Many assault with dangerous weapon cases hinge on eyewitness accounts that may be unreliable, contradictory, or even fabricated. Skilled defense counsel carefully examine witness statements for inconsistencies, bias, and credibility issues. Did the witness actually see the alleged weapon? Was lighting adequate? Did the witness have a motive to misrepresent facts? These questions often reveal that the “dangerous weapon” exists primarily in the prosecution’s narrative rather than in objective reality.
Defense attorneys frequently present expert testimony or demonstrative evidence to show that an object alleged to be dangerous actually poses minimal risk of serious bodily injury. For example, a soft-sided object or an item with poor striking capability may be incapable of causing the injuries alleged. This directly undermines the dangerous weapon element and may result in reduction to simple assault.
Even if the defendant possessed an object that could theoretically cause harm, the prosecution must prove the defendant used it as a weapon or displayed it threatening serious harm. If the object was merely present but not actually wielded against the victim, charges should be reduced. Defense counsel carefully examines the sequence of events, physical evidence, and testimony to establish that the item was incidental rather than instrumental to the assault.
In Michigan, individuals have the legal right to use reasonable force, including force with an object, to defend themselves against unlawful force or imminent threat of force. If the defendant used an object in self-defense against an aggressor, this may completely eliminate criminal liability. Defense attorneys thoroughly investigate the circumstances leading to the physical altercation to establish that their client was the victim of aggression who reasonably responded with protective force.
If you’re facing assault with dangerous weapon charges, understanding your situation clearly is essential. First, do not discuss the details of your case with anyone except your attorney. Second, preserve all physical evidence, including clothing, photographs of injuries, and any objects that might be relevant to your defense. Third, document your own injuries, as they may support a self-defense claim. Fourth, gather contact information for potential witnesses who can testify about what actually occurred.
Finally, recognize that dangerous weapon allegations often rest on subjective interpretations that skilled defense counsel can effectively challenge. The severity of your situation demands experienced representation from an attorney who understands Michigan assault law and has successfully defended hundreds of similar cases.
Defending assault with dangerous weapon charges requires deep knowledge of Michigan case law, understanding of how prosecutors typically approach these cases, and courtroom experience demonstrating how judges and juries evaluate weapon allegations. An attorney who has tried numerous assault cases understands the subtle evidentiary issues that can make the difference between conviction and acquittal, or between a dangerous weapon felony and a simple assault misdemeanor.
If you’re facing these charges, don’t assume the prosecution’s characterization of an object as a “dangerous weapon” is legally sound. Many such cases contain significant weaknesses that experienced defense counsel can exploit to protect your rights and future.