Vermont v. Brunner, 99 A.3d 1019

Defendant Aidan Brunner was charged after an altercation in which he allegedly slashed another person with a metal implement; charged under 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a)(5) (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) and 13 V.S.A. § 4001 (possession of slung shot, blackjack, brass knuckles, or similar weapon with intent to use).
The contested device consists of two curved riveted metal pieces forming a hand slot and a protruding bar with ~17 serrated teeth; blades fold into the device when retracted.
Defendant moved to dismiss the § 4001 count arguing the device is not brass knuckles or similar, urged narrow construction and the rule of lenity, and contended vagueness; he also argued the device’s primary use is cutting (a knife), not augmenting a punch.
Trial court inspected the weapon, relied on dictionary definitions and precedent from other jurisdictions, and denied the motion, finding the device fits the core elements of brass knuckles or a similar weapon.
Defendant entered a conditional nolo contendere plea to the § 4001 charge to preserve appeal; the Vermont Supreme Court reviews statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brunner)	Held
Whether the device falls within § 4001’s prohibition on "brass knuckles or similar weapon"	§ 4001 is broad; the device’s design increases injury when gripped and thus falls within the statute	Device lacks traditional finger rings/holes and primarily cuts; statute ambiguous so apply rule of lenity and construe narrowly; or device is a knife	Device falls within § 4001: shares core elements of brass knuckles (gripped, fits over knuckles, augments blows); statute not ambiguous here
Whether the rule of lenity requires narrow construction	N/A (argued by State implicitly that statute is clear)	Statute’s lack of definition creates ambiguity that benefits defendant	Rule of lenity does not apply because statute, read by ordinary meaning and context, clearly covers the device
Whether weapons having other legitimate uses or added components (e.g., blades) are excluded	N/A	Device’s potential alternate uses (e.g., cutting) remove it from § 4001	Court rejects a "reasonable other use" limitation; presence of blades does not remove the device from § 4001 if it is designed to augment a punch
Whether being also regulable under § 4003 (dangerous weapons) precludes charging under § 4001	N/A	If device fits § 4003, it cannot be in § 4001 subset	Same conduct can implicate multiple statutes; § 4001 covers a subset of dangerous weapons and applies here

Small v. Bud-K Worldwide, Inc., 895 F. Supp. 2d 438 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (metal keychain could qualify as "knuckles" because it is designed to augment a punch)
Thompson v. United States, 59 A.3d 961 (D.C. 2013) (rejecting exclusion of knuckles merely because device incorporates a blade; would produce absurd results)
People v. Singleton, 487 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1985) (adopted multi-factor approach evaluating contact in punching use, ready offensiveness, and lack of reasonable other uses)
People v. Laurore, 926 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) (keychain-style devices deemed capable of augmenting blows and treated as knuckles)