Commonwealth v. Higgins, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 534

Police arrested the defendant on Sept. 5, 2009, at his residence during an investigation of a prior stabbing and seized a folding knife from his bedroom under a search warrant.
The knife is a folding, lockable blade; the defendant admitted ownership but denied involvement in the stabbing.
The defendant was charged with aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and with carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(6); the jury acquitted the former and convicted on § 10(6).
Trial focused on whether the knife was of a type prohibited by § 10(6); the court did not develop the jury’s understanding of the knife’s accessibility to a locked position.
The appellate court held the evidence failed to prove the knife fit § 10(6)’s prohibited “device or case” requirement, reversed the conviction, and set aside the verdict; there was no testimony or material on ease of opening the blade, and the actual knife could not be examined by the jury at trial or on appeal.
Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; judgment for the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the knife falls within § 10(6)’s prohibited device or case.	Commonwealth: thumb studs and locking features render the knife a prohibited device.	Defendant: knife is a common hunting/camping knife, not primarily designed for stabbing.	Insufficient evidence that knife was a prohibited device; conviction reversed.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 694 (1986) (knife not covered due to lack of rapid opening; statutory amendment followed)
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 239 (2012) (discusses scope of prohibited knives under § 10(6))
Commonwealth v. Wynton W., 459 Mass. 745 (2011) (locking mechanism not dispositive of per se dangerous weapon status)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)