Richards v. Commonwealth
In Richards v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 242, 246 n.2, 443 S.E.2d 177, 179 n.2 (1994), the Court defined a dirk as "any stabbing weapon, having two sharp edges and a point, including daggers, short swords, and stilettos."
The trial court ruled that the knife was "a dirk with one side . . . a one-sided, sharp edge of a dirk which falls within the statute that says any weapon of like kind . . . ."
Delcid argues on appeal that the knife could not be a dirk, because it had but one sharp edge and was thus excluded from the definition of a dirk set forth in Richards.
"The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987).
"The determination of whether a particular knife falls within the meaning of a term used in the statute is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact." Richards, 18 Va. App. at 246 n.2, 443 S.E.2d at 179 n.2.