## Facts

- A gas station cashier working alone was approached by Walter L. Powell, who demanded money from the cash register.
- Powell moved behind the counter, stated he had a gun, and threatened to shoot the cashier if she resisted.
- The cashier saw a partially concealed object protruding from Powell’s jacket and, uncertain whether it was real, feared she would be shot.
- Powell took about $170 and forced the cashier to leave the store and walk with him for several minutes before telling her to run back.
- Police recovered a wooden object made to resemble a double-barreled shotgun (wood stock, dowel “barrels,” clothespin “hammer”) near the scene; the cashier identified it as the object Powell used.
- A Superior Court jury convicted Powell of armed robbery, kidnapping, and assault and battery.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove “armed with a dangerous weapon” for armed robbery where the object used was a wooden replica gun.
2. Whether the trial judge’s reasonable doubt instruction diluted the Commonwealth’s burden of proof in violation of due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the wooden replica could qualify as a “dangerous weapon” for armed robbery because, in context, it reasonably appeared capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to the victim.
- The court found the trial judge properly denied the motion for a required finding of not guilty on the armed robbery charge.
- The court held the reasonable doubt instruction, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the constitutional standard and did not lessen the Commonwealth’s burden.

## Legal Principles

- For armed robbery, an object may be treated as a “dangerous weapon” based on its apparent ability to cause serious harm as reasonably perceived by the victim under the circumstances, not solely on its actual operability.
- A jury may consider the defendant’s representations (e.g., claiming to have a gun) and threats, along with what the victim observed, in deciding whether the object reasonably appeared dangerous.
- A reasonable doubt instruction is constitutionally sufficient if, taken in its entirety, it correctly communicates the presumption of innocence and that the Commonwealth must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt; no specific wording is required.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Powell’s armed robbery conviction because the replica firearm, combined with a threat to shoot and the victim’s reasonable fear, satisfied the “dangerous weapon” element, and it rejected a due process challenge to the reasonable doubt instruction because the charge adequately stated the Commonwealth’s burden.


Commonwealth v. Powell, 433 Mass. 399, 742 N.E.2d 1061 (2001)