SEE EVANS
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Evans was convicted by jury of Carrying a Concealed Weapon after a law enforcement officer observed a sword in a scabbard on the floor between the open driver's door and seat. On appeal, Evans challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and a jury instruction, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient competent evidence to submit to the jury the issues of whether the sword was a weapon, whether it was securely encased, and whether it was carried concealed. The jury instruction on the definition of 'weapon' was properly phrased and not erroneous.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal admits all facts in evidence, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of the state.
[2] A trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless, when viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence does not establish a prima fa…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motion for judgment of acquittal not only admits all facts in evidence, but all inferences must be drawn in favor of the state.”
Establishes the strict standard of review for denying motions for judgment of acquittal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA law enforcement officer approached Evans who had just exited his vehicle and observed a sword in its scabbard lying on the floor between the open dr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concealed Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
Following a jury trial, appellant was adjudged guilty of and sentenced for Carrying a Concealed Weapon, from which final judgment he appeals. He contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case and at the close of all the evidence, and (1) by giving an erroneous jury instruction. We disagree and affirm.
The standard for review for an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal is de novo. See Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
The salient facts, distilled to their quintessence, are that when a law enforcement officer approached appellant who had just exited his vehicle, the officer saw a sword in its scabbard lying on the floor between the open driver’s door and the driver’s seat.
The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for directed judgment of acquittal. A motion for judgment of acquittal not only admits all facts in evidence, but all inferences must be drawn in favor of the state. Calvo v. State, 624 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A trial court should not grant such a motion unless, when viewed in light most favorable to the state, the evidence does not establish a prima facie case. Id. at 920.
There was sufficient competent evidence to submit to the jury the issues of whether the sword was a weapon, or was securely encased, or was carried concealed. See Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1984) (pistol under floor mat partially visible through front windshield and fully visible from open driver’s door presented issue for jury as to whether it was concealed); L.G. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (officer saw through already open door portion of handgun protruding from under driver’s seat; delinquency finding upheld); Clark v. State, 993 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (defendant’s C-4 motion to dismiss alleging 18 inch knife in sheath under front driver’s seat was “securely encased” properly denied in view of state’s traverse denying knife snapped in holster or otherwise carried in such a way as to be securely encased met statutory definition.)
Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for new trial. The jury instruction based on section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes defining the word “weapon” was properly phrased and it was not error to give it.
Consequently, the final judgment of guilt of the offense of Carrying Concealed Weapon appealed from is
AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 22nd day of June, 2010.
/S/________________________________
Rom W. Powell, Senior Judge
/S/__________________________________ /S/________________________________ Walter Komanksi, Circuit Judge
Bob LeBlanc, Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Kinberly M. DeVries, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Ave., Orlando FL 32801, and to Christina J. Patterson, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Ave., Orlando FL 32801, by inter-office mail, this 22nd day of June, 2010.
/S/_________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elton E. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981)
- Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- L.G. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Elfrey Calvo v. State, 624 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Clark v. State, 993 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)