Commonwealth v. Smith

On appeal the defendant asserts that (1) the judge erred when he allowed the Commonwealth to amend the complaint by substituting “blunt object” for “metal pipe” as one of the specific weapons named in the count alleging assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.1

1. Amendment to the complaint. The defendant claims that the judge improperly allowed an amendment to the count of the complaint that charged him with assault and battery by means…