Mason v. State

The defendant's conduct in pointing his homemade device at the victims in the same manner a person could point a store-bought pistol, rifle or shotgun did not render his device functionally indistinguishable from the types of pistols, rifles and shotguns excluded from O.C.G.A. § 16-7-80 4 B's definition of destructive devices.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Banks County jury found William Mason guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of two counts of aggravated assault, OCGA § 16-5-21 a 2 with a deadly weapon; two counts of possession of a destructive device with the intent to intimidate, OCGA § 16-7-88 a; and one count of making a terroristic threat, OCGA § 16-11-37 a. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, Mason appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of possession of a destructive device with the intent to intimidate and that a merger of offenses precluded the imposition of separate sentences. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence shows the following. On August 17, 2007, Mason broke into the home of the victims a man and a woman and threatened to kill them if they did not pay him $30 that the female victim owed Mason for drugs. A short while later, the victims went to their landlord’s house and again encountered Mason there. Mason had a homemade device that was constructed from a piece of three-quarter inch metal pipe twelve to eighteen inches in length, a cap that screwed on to one end of the pipe, and a bolt that penetrated the end cap to serve as a detonator or firing pin. Mason loaded a shotgun shell into the device. He pointed the open end of the device at the female victim’s head and threatened to kill her if she did not pay him. He then pulled the male victim around to the side of the house and pointed the weapon at his face, saying, “I should kill you.” About an hour later, Mason discharged the loaded weapon by causing the bolt to strike the shell’s primer.

1. Mason contends that the device he allegedly pointed at the victims was not a destructive device within the terms of OCGA § 16-7-88 a and, therefore, that his conviction under that Code section cannot stand.

Mason v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report