Oakland Raiders place kicker Sebastian Janikowski is a man for the record books. Not only is he the co-holder of the longest field goal in National Football League history (63 yards), he seems hell-bent on becoming the league's most courtroom-savvy kicker.
Yesterday Janikowski was sentenced to anger management classes and community service, stemming from a 2010 incident in which he purportedly forced a woman who had been taking photos of him into the back room of a Walnut Creek nightclub. Should Janikowski avoid being arrested for the next 12 months, a battery charge will be dropped. We give the kicker as good a chance of eluding the law for a year as he has of making a 55-yard field goal: It's a toss-up.
In preparation for that inevitable next Janikowski incident, we wondered: Can a man with the superhuman ability to boot balls into the stratosphere be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if he kicks someone?
There are two ways of answering that question: No -- and sort of.
You've probably seen a movie in which someone boasts about how his hands are registered as deadly weapons. If ever you hear someone talking this way in a bar, be sure you actually watch your drinks being poured -- because you're dealing with a liar.
"That's a myth. That's a joke," says veteran criminal defense attorney Ken Quigley. Kung fu masters and boxers do not have to register their hands with the cops. So Janikowski doesn't have to register his feet.
The term "deadly weapon" is broad. It can include cars. It can include cutlery. It can, in extenuating circumstances, even include neckwear (if you remove your tie and whip someone, that wouldn't constitute a deadly weapon. If you attempt to garrotte someone with it, that could). But, in this state, it cannot include a mere hand or foot.
This matter was codified in the 1997 case People v. Aguilar. Here's the kicker from that state supreme court ruling:
Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) punishes "an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury."
We granted review to determine whether hands or feet can constitute "deadly weapons" within the meaning of the statute. That hands and feet may be capable of inflicting deadly force, as by means of karate kicks or prizefighter blows, is not in question. We conclude, however that the term "weapon," as used in the statute, implies an object extrinsic to the body.
Contrary to the Court of Appeal, we further conclude the jury was not asked to find defendant Raymond Aguilar guilty under an erroneous legal theory; hence, reversal of defendant's conviction (under the rule of People v. Guiton [1993]) was improper.
