Expertise-com - Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in Boston - 2026 - Badge

Expertise-com - Best DUI Lawyers in Boston - 2026 - Badge

2024 - Top 3 - Criminal Defense Lawyers in Boston - Badge

Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon in Massachusetts

Updated August 2026

Massachusetts has two closely related dangerous-weapon assault offenses. Assault by means of a dangerous weapon, commonly called ADW, is charged under G.L. c. 265, § 15B. Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, or ABDW, is charged under G.L. c. 265, § 15A.

ADW and ABDW are both felonies, but the two offenses have different elements. ADW does not require physical contact. ABDW requires a touching by means of the alleged weapon. The contact requirement affects the evidence the Commonwealth must offer, the defenses the defendant can raise, and the maximum sentence the judge can impose.

This page addresses ADW and ABDW allegations that do not arise from a family or household relationship. Serpa Law Office has a separate guide to ADW and ABDW in Massachusetts domestic violence cases.

The Difference Between ADW and ABDW in Massachusetts

The basic difference between ADW and ABDW is whether a battery occurred. ADW is an assault with a dangerous weapon. The Commonwealth may prove either an attempted battery or an immediately threatened battery, but the Commonwealth does not need to prove that the defendant or the weapon touched the complainant.

ABDW requires a battery. The Commonwealth must prove an actual touching by means of the dangerous weapon. The contact may be direct, such as striking someone with an object, or indirect, such as causing the person to collide with an object or surface.

ADW and ABDW also require different mental states. ADW is an intentional offense. ABDW may be based on an intentional touching or on reckless conduct involving a dangerous weapon that causes bodily injury.

The Commonwealth must prove the elements of the statutory theory it charges, whatever label the police report uses. A raised object, an attempted strike that misses, a threat made with an apparent firearm, and a completed strike each require proof of different elements. Defense counsel matches the evidence to the correct statutory theory.

Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon Under G.L. c. 265, § 15B

Under G.L. c. 265, § 15B(b), a judge can sentence a person convicted of ADW to up to five years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, or a fine of up to $1,000.

The Massachusetts District Court model jury instruction for ADW describes two methods of proving the assault. The two methods are alternative ways to prove ADW rather than separate crimes.

Attempted-Battery ADW

For an attempted-battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove a specific intent to commit a battery and an overt act toward completing the battery. The act must come reasonably close to a touching. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant made the attempt by means of a dangerous weapon.

The complainant does not need to know about the attempt or experience fear. The jury focuses on the defendant’s alleged intent, the act the defendant took, how close the act came to completion, and the connection between the act and the weapon.

Immediately-Threatened-Battery ADW

For an immediately-threatened-battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended to place the complainant in fear of an immediate battery. The Commonwealth must also prove conduct that the complainant reasonably perceived as an immediate threat, and the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant made the threat with a dangerous weapon.

The immediately-threatened-battery theory requires proof of both the defendant’s intent and the complainant’s reasonable perception. Words alone, a conditional statement about future harm, or an object too remote to present an immediate threat may fail to establish one or more elements. Even so, the jury considers the entire interaction between the defendant and the complainant.

The police can seek an ADW complaint against a person who points what appears to be a firearm, raises an object while close enough to strike, or drives toward another person, even without contact. Whether the Commonwealth can prove ADW from that conduct depends on the theory charged and the circumstances of the encounter.

Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon Under G.L. c. 265, § 15A

Under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b), a judge can sentence a person convicted of basic ABDW to up to ten years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both a fine and imprisonment.

The Commonwealth may proceed under an intentional or reckless theory. Defense counsel identifies the Commonwealth’s theory from the complaint language, discovery, proposed jury instructions, and any bill of particulars.

Intentional ABDW

Under the Superior Court model ABDW instruction, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant touched the complainant by means of a dangerous weapon, intended the touching, and acted without legal justification.

The Commonwealth does not have to prove an intent to injure. A slight touching can satisfy the battery element if the prosecution proves the dangerous weapon, intent, and absence of justification. A defendant can still raise accident as a defense, because an unintentional touching does not establish intentional ABDW.

Reckless ABDW

Reckless ABDW requires proof of intentional conduct involving a dangerous weapon, a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result, knowledge or reason to know of that risk, and bodily injury caused by the conduct.

For reckless ABDW, unlike intentional ABDW, the Commonwealth must prove bodily injury. Defense counsel examines the conduct, the degree of risk, the defendant’s knowledge, causation, and the injury as separate questions, rather than accepting recklessness as a conclusion.

Aggravated ABDW and Offenses Against a Person Sixty or Older

Under Section 15A(c), a judge can sentence a person convicted of ABDW to up to fifteen years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000 in four circumstances. The Commonwealth must prove the applicable aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ABDW caused serious bodily injury.
The complainant was pregnant, and the defendant knew or had reason to know of the pregnancy.
A qualifying restraining, vacate, or no-contact order protected the complainant, and the defendant knew about the order.
The defendant was at least eighteen and the complainant was under fourteen.

A parent who spanks a child with a belt can be charged under § 15A. A teacher accused of striking a student with an object can also be charged under § 15A. Without a dangerous weapon, the Commonwealth can charge assault and battery on a child under G.L. c. 265, § 13J when the child was injured.

Section 15A defines serious bodily injury narrowly. Serious bodily injury means permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death. Evidence of pain, bruising, stitches, or medical treatment does not automatically establish serious bodily injury.

Separate subsections of the two statutes govern ADW and ABDW against a person sixty or older. Sections 15B(a) and 15A(a) include prior-offense and sentencing provisions that differ from the basic offenses. Defense counsel confirms the defendant’s age, the complainant’s age, and the record of any alleged prior conviction before advising the client on the possible sentence.

What Counts as a Dangerous Weapon

Massachusetts courts distinguish objects dangerous by design from ordinary objects that may be dangerous as used. A firearm and some knives are common examples of objects designed for use as weapons.

An object made for an innocent purpose may qualify as a dangerous weapon when the defendant uses the object in a way that reasonably appears capable of causing serious injury or death. Massachusetts courts have treated vehicles, bottles, tools, furniture, footwear, and animals as dangerous weapons in particular circumstances.

The name of an object alone does not establish that the object is a dangerous weapon. The jury, or the judge in a jury-waived trial, considers the object’s size, weight, shape, condition, movement, force, point of contact, distance, and alleged manner of use. When dangerousness depends on how an ordinary object was used, the factfinder ordinarily decides whether the object was a dangerous weapon.

An ADW charge may also involve an object that appears capable of causing injury even when the object is not operational. Under the immediately-threatened-battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the complainant reasonably perceived an immediate threat. For ABDW, however, the Commonwealth must still prove that the touching occurred by means of an object that meets the dangerous-weapon standard.

Common Defenses to ADW

No immediate threat was intended or perceived. Under the threatened-battery theory, ambiguous words, distance, intervening barriers, the direction of movement, and the complainant’s contemporaneous conduct may contradict the claim that the defendant made an immediate threat.

The conduct did not come reasonably close to a battery. Preparation, possession of an object, or angry speech is not necessarily an attempted battery. The Commonwealth must prove an overt act that came reasonably close to completing the intended touching.

The defendant lacked the required intent. Mistake, accident, misinterpreted movement, and the sequence captured on video can show that the defendant lacked the specific intent required for the charged theory.

The object was not a dangerous weapon. An ordinary object does not become a dangerous weapon merely because it was present during a confrontation. The Commonwealth must prove the alleged use of the object and the object’s apparent capacity for serious harm.

Common Defenses to ABDW

No touching occurred by means of the object. Displaying or possessing an object is not enough for ABDW. The Commonwealth must prove that the alleged battery occurred by means of the weapon.

The contact was accidental and not reckless. Evidence of accident can defeat a charge of intentional ABDW. The Commonwealth must separately prove the substantial risk, culpable conduct, knowledge, injury, and causation required for reckless ABDW.

The medical evidence does not prove the charged injury. Hospital treatment does not itself establish serious bodily injury. Defense counsel compares the medical records, images, and expert evidence with the statutory definition of serious bodily injury.

The dangerous-weapon element is absent. The defense can challenge the object’s condition, alleged manner of use, capability, and connection to the contact.

Self-Defense and Defense of Another

A person may use reasonable force against an imminent use of unlawful force. Once the evidence raises self-defense, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no self-defense.

A defendant accused of using a weapon can still claim self-defense. The judge must decide whether the evidence calls for the nondeadly-force or the deadly-force instruction. The jury decides what level of force the defendant used. The defendant’s response must also be proportionate to the danger the defendant reasonably perceived.

For deadly force, the defendant must have had a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The defendant must also have used reasonable means to avoid the combat, including retreat when Massachusetts law requires retreat.

Evidence of the complainant’s prior violence may be admissible when the defendant knew about the prior violence and that knowledge affected the defendant’s reasonable concern for safety. Under Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649, 664 (2005), specific acts initiated by the complainant may also be relevant when self-defense is raised and the identity of the first aggressor or first user of deadly force is disputed.

The defense must provide timely notice before offering Adjutant evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court has limited the Adjutant rule to cases in which the defendant claims self-defense. Commonwealth v. Benoit, 452 Mass. 212, 228 (2008). The court has declined to extend the rule to a defendant who claims only defense of another. Commonwealth v. Camacho, 472 Mass. 587 (2015). The firm’s Massachusetts self-defense guide explains proportionality, retreat, prior-act evidence, and the current instructions.

The Evidence in an ADW or ABDW Case

ADW and ABDW cases often arise from short encounters in streets, bars, workplaces, campuses, vehicles, or public buildings. A police narrative may compress several movements and statements into one conclusion. Video and other original evidence can show a different sequence of events.

Defense counsel should obtain surveillance video, body-camera footage, phone video, photographs, 911 recordings, dispatch timestamps, messages, location information, and complete witness statements early. The jury may give the condition and dimensions of the alleged object as much weight as the testimony describing the object.

For ABDW, defense counsel compares the physical evidence with the claimed contact and injury. For ADW, defense counsel separately examines the distance, sight lines, barriers, timing, the complainant’s perception, and the defendant’s apparent ability to complete the threatened act.

A complainant’s absence does not automatically require dismissal. The Commonwealth may try to prove the case through other witnesses, recordings, statements, medical records, and photographs. The Commonwealth must still show that a rule of evidence permits the jury to hear each out-of-court statement. A testimonial statement must also satisfy the Confrontation Clause.

Bail, Dangerousness, and the Court Process

Because ADW and ABDW are felonies, the Commonwealth may move for a dangerousness hearing under G.L. c. 276, § 58A on either charge. The Commonwealth’s motion alone does not establish that the judge should order pretrial detention.

The judge must consider whether release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community. The judge may order pretrial detention only on clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure that safety. Defense counsel may contest the Commonwealth’s factual account and propose enforceable conditions of release.

The six-hour bail restriction in G.L. c. 276, § 42A applies to an adult arrest for conduct that would constitute abuse under Chapter 209A. The six-hour restriction does not apply to an ordinary non-domestic case merely because the Commonwealth charges ADW or ABDW.

The Commonwealth may prosecute an ADW or ABDW case in a District Court or the Boston Municipal Court, or by indictment in the Superior Court. Early defense decisions may include preserving video, seeking the alleged object, challenging identification, requesting particulars, addressing bail, and evaluating a motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.

Reducing or Resolving the Charge

If the Commonwealth cannot prove the dangerous-weapon element but can prove a simple assault or battery, the jury may still find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense. Whether the judge gives a lesser-included-offense instruction depends on the charged theory and the evidence.

Many ADW and ABDW cases depend on whether the evidence proves contact. When the Commonwealth cannot prove contact, an ABDW charge may support only an ADW conviction. An ADW charge may fail if the Commonwealth cannot prove either an attempted battery or an immediately threatened battery.

A reduced charge is not always the correct goal. Dismissal or acquittal may be the appropriate result when the evidence is insufficient, unlawfully obtained, or contradicted by reliable records. The guide to dismissal of Massachusetts criminal cases explains the procedures for seeking dismissal.

Criminal Records and Other Consequences

An arraignment creates a CORI entry. A person whose case ended in dismissal or acquittal may seek sealing without waiting the seven-year period that applies to a felony conviction. A person with a felony conviction ordinarily must wait the statutory seven-year period and meet the other requirements of G.L. c. 276, § 100A before the Commissioner of Probation seals the record.

A conviction may prevent a person from holding a firearms license or possessing a firearm under Massachusetts and federal law. The result depends on the precise offense, disposition, sentence, and any applicable restoration provision. A person facing a dangerous-weapon charge should obtain advice before accepting a plea or admission that may affect possession or licensing.

A noncitizen charged with ADW or ABDW also needs immigration advice before any plea. Whether federal immigration law treats a disposition as a crime of violence or another removable offense depends on the statutory theory, the record of conviction, the sentence, and the federal definitions. A Massachusetts CWOF may still be a conviction for federal immigration purposes.

Students and licensed professionals may have separate reporting, disciplinary, or fitness requirements. The firm’s guides to professional-license consequences, student criminal defense, and immigration consequences address those reporting, disciplinary, and fitness requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions About ADW and ABDW

What is the difference between ADW and ABDW in Massachusetts?

ADW under G.L. c. 265, § 15B does not require physical contact. It requires an attempted or immediately threatened battery with a dangerous weapon. ABDW under § 15A requires an actual touching by means of the weapon. ABDW may be based on an intentional touching or reckless conduct that causes bodily injury.

Can someone be convicted of ADW if the weapon never touched anyone?

Yes. Physical contact is not an element of ADW. The Commonwealth must instead prove either an attempted battery that came reasonably close to completion or conduct the complainant reasonably perceived as an immediate threat of battery. The prosecution must also prove the required intent and dangerous-weapon element.

What objects can be dangerous weapons in a Massachusetts assault case?

Some objects are dangerous because they are designed to cause serious injury or death. An ordinary object can also qualify when it is used in a way that reasonably appears capable of causing serious injury or death. The factfinder considers the object’s condition, size, movement, force, distance, and manner of use.

What are the maximum penalties for ADW and ABDW in Massachusetts?

Basic ADW is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Basic ABDW is punishable by up to ten years, while aggravated ABDW under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(c) is punishable by up to fifteen years. House-of-correction and fine alternatives also appear in the statutes. Separate provisions apply when the complainant is sixty or older.

What does the Commonwealth have to prove for assault with a dangerous weapon?

An assault committed by means of a dangerous weapon, proved in one of two ways. Under the attempted battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant specifically intended to commit a battery, took an overt act toward it, came reasonably close to completing it, and made the attempt with a dangerous weapon. Under the immediately threatened battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended to place the complainant in fear of an immediate battery, engaged in conduct the complainant reasonably perceived as an immediate threat, and made the threat with a dangerous weapon. No touching is required under either theory.

What does the Commonwealth have to prove for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon?

For intentional ABDW, that the defendant touched the complainant by means of a dangerous weapon, intended the touching, and acted without legal justification. The Commonwealth does not have to prove an intent to injure. A slight touching is enough. For reckless ABDW, that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct involving a dangerous weapon, that the conduct created a high degree of likelihood of substantial harm, that the defendant knew or had reason to know of that risk, and that the conduct caused bodily injury. The Commonwealth must prove the theory it charges.

Is assault with a dangerous weapon a felony in Massachusetts?

Yes. A defendant convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265, § 15B(b) faces up to five years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, or a fine of up to $1,000. The offense is a felony because the statute allows a state prison sentence. The Commonwealth may prosecute ADW in the District Court, where the judge can impose only the house of correction sentence, or by indictment in the Superior Court. ABDW under § 15A is also a felony, with a maximum of ten years in state prison.

What is aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon?

ABDW with one of four circumstances under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(c), which the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The first is serious bodily injury, meaning permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death. The second is a pregnant complainant, when the defendant knew or had reason to know it. The third is a restraining, vacate, or no-contact order protecting the complainant, known to the defendant. The fourth is a defendant at least eighteen and a complainant under fourteen. A defendant convicted of aggravated ABDW faces up to fifteen years in state prison.

Can a car be a dangerous weapon in a Massachusetts assault case?

Yes. A car is an ordinary object that becomes a dangerous weapon when the defendant uses it in a way that reasonably appears capable of causing serious injury or death. Driving a car toward a person can support an assault by means of a dangerous weapon charge even when the car never touches the person, under the immediately threatened battery theory. Striking a person with a car supports an assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon charge. The jury decides whether the car was used as a dangerous weapon from the speed, the direction, the distance, and the circumstances.

Can I be charged with ADW for pointing a fake gun or an unloaded gun?

Yes, under the immediately threatened battery theory. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended to place the complainant in fear of an immediate battery and that the complainant reasonably perceived an immediate threat. An object that appears capable of causing injury can satisfy the dangerous weapon element for that theory even when it is not operational, because the complainant’s reasonable perception is the question. The defense examines whether the object was displayed as a weapon, the distance, the words used, and whether the complainant saw the object at all.

Can I be held without bail on an ADW or ABDW charge in Massachusetts?

Yes, after a dangerousness hearing. Both offenses are felonies whose elements require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, so each qualifies under G.L. c. 276, § 58A. On the Commonwealth’s motion at arraignment, the judge can order the defendant held for up to 120 days in the District Court, absent good cause, only on clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community. The defense presents conditions such as GPS monitoring and a stay-away order at the hearing.

Can an ADW or ABDW charge be reduced to simple assault and battery?

Yes, in two ways. At trial, the judge may instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault or assault and battery under G.L. c. 265, § 13A when the evidence leaves doubt about the dangerous weapon element. The jury may then convict of the lesser offense only. Before trial, the Commonwealth may agree to reduce the charge when the evidence that the object was used as a dangerous weapon is weak. A defendant convicted of simple assault and battery faces up to two and one-half years in a house of correction or a fine of up to $1,000. That conviction is a misdemeanor.

How Attorney Serpa Defends ADW and ABDW Charges

Attorney Serpa begins with the exact charge, statutory subsection, and prosecution theory. He examines police reports, recordings, video, photographs, medical records, witness accounts, digital communications, and the alleged object against each element rather than against the officer’s summary.

Attorney Serpa determines whether the evidence alleges an attempt, an immediate threat, an intentional touching, or reckless injury. He then addresses dangerousness, self-defense, identification, admissibility, injury, causation, and collateral consequences in the order the case requires.

Serpa Law Office represents clients charged with ADW, ABDW, and related offenses in the Boston Municipal Court and Massachusetts District and Superior Courts. To discuss a pending case, call 617.936.0201 or request a confidential consultation.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

Client Reviews

He's one of the best people I've met. I'm really appreciative of all the help I received. If you have a serious case, he'll work hard to make sure you have the best outcome. I highly recommend him. You will not be disappointed.

A.J

Mr. Serpa was very helpful with my family member ‘s case. He was able to get it dismissed quickly and easily. He is very professional and very good at what he does. I’m so glad he hired him. You will be glad too if you hire him.

Z.M.

Serpa law office was my attorney of choice for 2 seperate cases I had last year. With both situations, Joseph not only treated me great, delivered the results I was hoping for, and was extremely professional and genuine. I would definitely recommend this law office to anyone in need of legal help.

P.C.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review

Greater Boston Criminal Law Alerts

Matthew Farwell Convicted in the Death of Sandra Birchmore: The Evidence, the Elements and the Verdict

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Tuesday, November 10, 2026, a federal jury in Boston found former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell guilty on both counts of the superseding indictment that charged him in the death of Sandra Birchmore, according to WBUR. Count One charged him with killing a witness or…

Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Double Jeopardy Motion: The November 9, 2026 Rulings

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Monday, November 9, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. He also denied her request for records about the holdout juror and her request to question that juror under oath. He denied the Commonwealth’s request…

Lindsay Clancy Hearing on November 2, 2026 and the Double Jeopardy Motion

On November 2, 2026, Judge William Sullivan heard the Lindsay Clancy double jeopardy motion and indicated that a second trial could begin in March 2027.