Teeth are Not a Dangerous Weapon According to Oregon Courts
by Under U.S. law and judicial proceedings teeth have been classified as deadly or dangerous weapons when used by adults against another person. Yet, for some reason, the Oregon Court of Appeals has reduced a conviction based upon "teeth" not being specified in Oregon law.
While HIV/AIDS is commonly on everyone’s mind when being bitten, the liklihood of infection through this means is considered to be negligible. However, there are a slew of other human infections that can be associated with bite wounds. Herpes can be transmitted through bites. Hepatitis B and C can be contracted in this manner. The venereal disease Syphilis can pass from one human to another through bites. Then there is tetanus, tuberculosis and a host of other less commonly know bacterial infections that can manifest.
In the case of the United States v. Moore 846 F.2d 1163 (1988), James Vernell Moore, who tested positive for Hepatitis antigens, lost an appeal of a September 25, 1987 conviction on two counts of assault with a deadly and dangerous weapon for biting two federal corrections officers.
In upholding the verdict, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found: “We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury finding that Moore’s mouth and teeth were used as a deadly and dangerous weapon, even though the evidence did not support a finding that Moore’s bite could have transmitted AIDS.”
The Court of Appeals also cited a 1985 case, United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216, 223 (8th Cir. 1985), in which “the government could prove that the human mouth and teeth are a deadly and dangerous weapon without referring to AIDS at all”.
In many case throughout the history of U.S. Courts is has been held, according to the Court of Appeals summary that “what constitutes a dangerous weapon depends not on the nature of the object itself but on its capacity, given the manner of its use, to ‘… endanger life or inflict great bodily harm.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, supra, 324 F.2d at 266). Johnson also states that “it is not necessary that the object, as used by a defendant, actually cause great bodily harm, as long as it has the capacity to inflict such harm in the way it was used.”
In the face of established medical and court precident, it is interesting to view the Oregon Court of Appeal’s opinion as to why the use of teeth in biting off a victims ear, did not constitute “use of a dangerous weapon”.
To quote the Oregon ruling: “Assault and related offenses are codified at ORS 163.160 to 163.213. The elements of first-degree assault are contained in ORS 163.185, which provides, in part:
“(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if the person:
“(a) Intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon[.]“
A “dangerous weapon” is defined in ORS 161.015(1) as
“any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”
Thus, to prove first-degree assault “by means of a * * * dangerous weapon,” the state must establish that the object used was a “weapon, device, instrument, material or substance,” and that “under the circumstances in which it is used, * * * [it] is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” ORS 161.015(1)….
“The court concluded that teeth, under these circumstances, are a dangerous weapon, but failed to specify whether teeth are a weapon, device, instrument, material or substance.’
“Thus, the plain meaning of the terms used to define “dangerous weapon” in ORS 161.015(1) suggests that the legislature did not intend a defendant’s own teeth to be considered as a “dangerous weapon,” because teeth are not external to the human body.”
In essence, the Oregon conundrum originates not in whether or not teeth used against another individual are a deadly weapon but in the fact that such a use never occurred to the Oregon State Legislature. However, in failing such a detailed description in law, tort law (laws made as a result of court rulings) is usually more than sufficient in filling such gaps.
We can only wonder and speculate at this time why such a literal interpretation of law caused a dismissal of the initial conviction. Still, no matter the view of Oregon jurists, the best advice continues to be “Do not bite”!
Karl Callwood is a certified emergency responder qualified in CPR/AED and First Aid for Adults, Children and Infants. Since 1989 he has written, analyzed and reviewed legislation for the Legislature of the Virgin Islands.
Liked it
