93 N.Y.2d 398 (1999)
r
r
An individual’s body part, such as teeth, does not constitute a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of New York Penal Law § 10.00(13).
r
r
Summary
r
Maxwell Owusu was indicted on multiple charges, including burglary and assault, some of which were predicated on the use or threatened use of a “dangerous instrument.” The charges stemmed from an incident where Owusu forced his way into his estranged wife’s apartment and bit another man’s finger during a fight, severing nerves. The trial court dismissed or reduced counts involving the “dangerous instrument” element, reasoning that teeth could not constitute such an instrument. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a body part is not an instrument under the statute. The court emphasized the plain meaning of “instrument,” legislative history, and past jurisprudence.
r
r
Facts
r
Maxwell Owusu forced his way into his estranged wife’s apartment.
r
A fight ensued between Owusu and another man, Michael Samuel.
r
During the fight, Owusu bit Samuel’s finger so severely that nerves were severed, causing permanent injuries.
r
As a result, Owusu was indicted on 13 counts, with several charges aggravated by the use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Supreme Court dismissed three counts and reduced one count of the indictment, finding that teeth could not be considered a dangerous instrument.
r
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that teeth can be a dangerous instrument under a “use-oriented approach”.
r
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether an individual’s teeth can constitute a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of New York Penal Law § 10.00(13), which defines a dangerous instrument as “any instrument, article, or substance… which, under the circumstances in which it is used… is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.