The fact that a dangerous weapon was used can be inferred from the victim's injuries. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 204, 206 (2003).
As the defendant raises no arguments concerning the April 2023 convictions, we have no cause to disturb them. See Commonwealthv.Smith, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 204, 205 n.l (2003). Accordingly, the April 2023 judgments on docket no. 2251CR001059 are affirmed.
The Commonwealth's concession does not relieve us of our appellate function of determining whether error was committed. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 204, 206 n.2 (2003). The defendant does not challenge the predicate offense of possession with intent to distribute a class B substance.
See also Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 405 Mass. 369, 381-382 (1989). Convictions of two cognate offenses will be sustained when there is no chance that the finder of fact based the two offenses upon the same act, see Commonwealth v. Smith, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 204, 207-208 (2003), citing Commonwealth v. Johnston, 60 Mass. App. Ct. at 22, that is, where the judge instructs the jury explicitly that they must find separate and distinct acts underlying the different charges. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 429 Mass. 502, 509 (1999); Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281, 293-294 (2003); Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217, 226 (2005).
However, our appellate courts have always insisted on at least the presence of both threatening words and menacing conduct.See Commonwealth v. Powell, 433 Mass. 399, 403-04 (2001) ("Where, as here, there was evidence that the defendant had an actual object in his possession, it was for the jury to determine whether that object came within the definition of dangerous weapon"); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass. 716 (1995) (The combination of the defendant's words ["I'll blow you away"] and his conduct [placing his hand in his pocket] was sufficient to permit the jury to infer he was armed with a dangerous weapon); Commonwealth v. Smith, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 204 (2003) (The defendant appeared to conceal an object inside his shirt and then the victim felt a blow from a rigid object, which had the immediate effect of knocking him to the ground and left a round circular mark on his forehead. Jury could infer from the injury that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 477 (2002) (Defendant demanded money from store clerk, and, with her hand out of sight, stated "I have a gun").