## Facts

- Hoyt Davis and the victim argued at a lounge in Holyoke, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1978, and a fight followed.
- During the altercation, Davis bit off a piece of the victim’s left ear.
- Davis was indicted for (1) mayhem under G.L. c. 265, § 14, and (2) assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (“teeth”) under G.L. c. 265, § 15A.
- At trial, the Commonwealth introduced five photographs depicting the severed ear piece and the ear after surgical reattachment.
- Davis claimed the photographs were unduly inflammatory and would skew the jury’s evaluation of his intent on the mayhem charge.
- A jury convicted Davis on both indictments.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge abused discretion by admitting graphic photographs of the victim’s injury when testimonial evidence also described the injury.
2. Whether human teeth (or other body parts) can constitute a “dangerous weapon” for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265, § 15A.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the mayhem conviction.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting the photographs because they had probative value on material issues, including the nature of the injury and intent.
- The court held that neither human teeth nor other body parts are “dangerous weapons” within the meaning of G.L. c. 265, § 15A.
- The court ruled the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been allowed as to the dangerous-weapon portion of the § 15A indictment and ordered entry of a not guilty finding on that element.

## Legal Principles

- Photographs are not inadmissible solely because they are disturbing; if they have evidentiary value on a material matter, admission is committed to the trial judge’s discretion and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Under G.L. c. 265, § 15A, a “dangerous weapon” refers to an external instrumentality (either inherently dangerous or dangerous as used), not the assailant’s body parts.
- Serious assaults committed without an external instrument are addressed by other Massachusetts felony-assault statutes (including mayhem and assault with intent to maim or murder), supporting a narrower reading of “dangerous weapon” in § 15A.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court sustained the admission of graphic injury photographs in a mayhem prosecution as a discretionary evidentiary ruling, but reversed the dangerous-weapon assault conviction because teeth and other body parts are not “dangerous weapons” under G.L. c. 265, § 15A.


Commonwealth v. Davis, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 190, 406 N.E.2d 417 (1980)