The Dangerous Weapon Need Not Have Caused The Substantial Bodily Harm to Support a Conviction of Second Degree Assault.

State v. Harlin, Minn.Ct.App., 8/25/2009.  Mr. Harlin suspected that his girlfriend was cheating on him so he set about to find out.  Mr. Harlin believed that an aggressive approach was required, but instead of water boarding he used a mallet and a hammer; over the next forty five minutes he hit her with one or the other each time he didn’t believe her answers to his questions.  (Still dissatisfied, he tried to hang her by wrapping an electrical cord around her neck.)  Among other things, the state charged Mr. Harlin with second degree assault with a dangerous weapon, substantial bodily harm.

Here’s what the statute says:

609.222 ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2. Dangerous weapon; substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

Mr. Harlin conceded that he used a “dangerous weapon” and that his girlfriend suffered bruises on her back and a cut to her scalp.  He argued that the state had to prove that the dangerous weapon caused the substantial bodily harm.  The appellate court isn’t buying the argument.  The court says that all that is necessary is an assault that results in substantial bodily harm and that the assault involves the use of a dangerous weapon.