Definition
In law, a stab is a wound inflicted by thrusting a pointed instrument into the body, penetrating the skin and drawing blood. The term describes both the act and the resulting injury. Legal usage focuses on the mechanics of the wound: the piercing motion and the pointed nature of the weapon are what distinguish a stab from a cut or a blow.
The distinction carries practical significance in criminal pleading and proof. A stab results from a thrust; a cut results from a drawing or slicing motion; a wound is the more general term covering any injury to the body. Where a charging instrument alleges a stab, the evidence must support that characterization — proof of a slashing injury may not satisfy an allegation of stabbing, depending on the jurisdiction and period.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An act of thrusting with a pointed object; a wound so made; also, informally, an attempt at something ("take a stab at it"), emotional pain, musical usage, or a bacteriological culture technique.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To pierce with a pointed weapon; to wound or kill by the thrust of a pointed instrument. Figuratively, to injure secretly or by malicious falsehood or slander.
The common meanings of "stab" are largely consistent with the legal meaning in their core sense — a thrust with a pointed instrument — but the law narrows the term significantly. Legally, a stab requires penetration of the skin and the drawing of blood; a thrust that fails to break the skin is not a stab in the technical legal sense. The figurative uses (reputational injury, emotional pain, informal "attempt") have no legal counterpart under this term.
Common Confusion
STAB vs. CUT vs. WOUND: These three terms are distinct in law even though they overlap in ordinary speech. A stab is caused by a thrusting motion with a pointed weapon. A cut is caused by a drawing or slicing motion with an edged weapon. A wound is the general term that encompasses both and extends further. Historical indictments frequently required precision in pleading the nature of the injury, and a variance between the instrument alleged and the instrument proved could be fatal to a prosecution. Researchers reviewing historical criminal records should pay close attention to how these terms appear in charging documents versus trial evidence.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter "stab" most frequently in criminal law records — indictments, informations, and judicial opinions involving assault, battery, mayhem, murder, and manslaughter. The term is not merely descriptive; in historical pleading practice it was a term of legal art that had to be correctly deployed and proven.
Several research traps arise. First, the technical distinction between stab, cut, and wound was more rigorously enforced in older common law pleading than in modern practice. Historical indictments that allege a stab but the evidence shows a cutting wound may have generated variance arguments; researchers examining acquittals or reversals in older records should check whether pleading defects explain the outcome.
Second, statutory offenses in many jurisdictions have historically used "stab" as a specific term in aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon provisions. Whether a particular instrument and motion qualify as a stab rather than some other form of wounding can determine which charge applies and what penalty range attaches.
Third, the Anderson's definition adds the blood-drawing requirement explicitly — penetration of the skin at least, and drawing of blood. This threshold matters in corpus research because it affects how courts characterized borderline facts: a thrust that caused bruising without penetration might be treated as a battery but not a stab.
Fourth, the connection to mayhem is worth tracking. Bouvier's cross-references mayhem directly (Bacon's Abridgement, Maihem (B)). Mayhem historically required a permanent injury disabling the victim for combat, and the nature of the wound — including whether it was a stab — could determine whether the offense rose to mayhem or remained simple assault.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four historical sources agree on the core: a stab is a thrust with a pointed weapon producing a wound. They diverge usefully on emphasis.
Black's (both editions) define the term purely in terms of the result: "a wound inflicted by a thrust with a pointed weapon." The second edition supplies case citations supporting this formulation, which gives researchers concrete judicial touchstones.
Anderson adds the requirement of skin penetration and blood-drawing, tightening the definition toward a minimum threshold. This is the most granular of the historical definitions and most useful when a borderline factual scenario is at issue.
Bouvier explicitly draws the distinction from cut and wound, and connects the term to mayhem authorities. The reference to Russell and Russell on Crimes and Bacon's Abridgement signals that this distinction had deep roots in English criminal law, not merely American statutory development.
None of the historical sources address the question of intent — stabbing as a legal matter concerns the mechanical nature of the act, not the actor's purpose. Whether the stab was intentional, reckless, or accidental goes to the specific offense charged, not to whether the injury was a stab.
Jurisdictional Note
The precise legal significance of "stab" versus "cut" or "wound" varies by jurisdiction and era. Older common law jurisdictions with strict pleading requirements enforced the distinction more rigorously than modern jurisdictions, which typically charge assault or battery without requiring precise characterization of the wound type. Researchers working in statutory contexts should check whether the relevant statute uses "stab" as a specific term of art, as some aggravated assault statutes enumerate stabbing separately from striking or cutting.