(3) As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a "deadly weapon" is "any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." ( In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275-276 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 898].) Some few objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law; the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.
“As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a ‘deadly weapon’ is ‘any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury.’ (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275-276 [186 Cal.Rptr. 898].) Some few objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law; the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.
Moreover, "As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a deadly weapon is any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury. (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 269, 275-276 .) Some few objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law; the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.
In general, the term "deadly weapon or instrument" as used in section 245, subdivision (a) (1), has been defined as "any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275-276 [186 Cal.Rptr. 898]; see also People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464, 465 [28 Cal.Rptr. 67].) Some objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly as a matter of law. (People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 327 [78 Cal.Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153].)
This statement of the law was adopted in several subsequent decisions reviewing sufficiency of the evidence. ( In re BrianF. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 672, 674-675 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 195]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Overton (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 843, 850 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 823]; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 898]; People v. Bedolla (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 171]; People v. Martinez, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d at pp. 863-864; see also People v. Cotton (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 294, 302-303 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 814] [distinguishing Lathus in finding evidence insufficient to sustain conviction].) The intent issue arose in an instructional context for the first time in Burres, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 341, in which the trial court supplemented the standard instruction on assault with a deadly weapon with a paraphrase from Lathus: "`When an act inherently dangerous to others is committed with a conscious disregard of human life and safety the intent to commit a battery is presumed.'"
I have found only one aggravated assault case where the everyday item held to have been used as a deadly weapon never made contact with the victim , and that case is easily distinguishable. In In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898, the defendant stuck a metal pin inside an apple and gave it to his teacher, but fortunately another student warned the teacher before she could eat it. ( Id. at p. 274, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898.)
I have found only one case where the everyday item held to have been used as a deadly weapon never made contact with the victim , and that case is easily distinguishable. In In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898, the defendant stuck a metal pin inside an apple and gave it to his teacher, but fortunately another student warned the teacher before she could eat it. ( Id. at p. 274, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898.)
We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v.Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466; Taylor v.Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909; see also In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404; In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089 [standard of proof is the same in juvenile proceedings as that required in adult criminal trials]; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275 [same].) On June 1, 2007, Devin M. and an unidentified cousin were attacked by the minor and two other youngsters.
A "deadly" weapon is any object which is "used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." ( In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275-276 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 898].) In Jose R., a needle (apparently a straight pin) inserted in an apple to be given to a teacher was enough to support a finding of assault with a deadly weapon.
As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a "deadly weapon" is "any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." (In re Jose D.R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275-276, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898.) Some few objects, such as dirks and blackjacks, have been held to be deadly weapons as a matter of law; the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.