STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DERRICK A. GALE, APPELLEE
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.
The state appealed the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss for insufficient concealment of a firearm. The court reversed, holding that the state's traverse adequately denied the material facts and created a prima facie case by alleging the gun was located on the vehicle's floorboard, raising a question of fact about whether it was hidden from ordinary sight.
The state's traverse was sufficient because it specifically denied that the firearm was not concealed and alleged specific facts—that the gun was located on the vehicle's floorboard—which created a material question of fact as to whether the firearm was hidden from the ordinary sight of another person, the legal standard for concealment.
[1] A traverse to a motion to dismiss must specifically deny the material facts set forth in the motion.
[2] The state, in traversing a motion to dismiss, is not obligated to present additional facts consistent with guilt, but must deny the material facts alleged in the motion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“it is only necessary that the facts alleged by the state, viewing all inferences in favor of the state, constitute a prima facie case”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of the state's response to a pretrial motion to dismiss
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee was charged with unlawfully and knowingly carrying a concealed firearm. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss arguing the firearm was not concea…
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 Ordinary Sight Of Another Person cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state filed an information charging that appellee “did ... unlawfully, and knowingly, carry on or about his person a concealed firearm.” On the theory that the firearm was not “concealed” appellee filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to rule 3.190(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The state filed a traverse; the trial court found the traverse insufficient and granted the motion to dismiss. The issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the traverse.
On a pretrial motion to dismiss, “it is only necessary that the facts alleged by the state, viewing all inferences in favor of the state, constitute a prima facie case.” State v. Bailey, 508 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987). To traverse, the state is under no obligation to present additional facts consistent with guilt, but it must specifically deny the material facts as set forth in the motion to dismiss. State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982). Consistent with Oberholtzer, the state did not need to allege any new facts, but merely had to deny specifically the allegations of the motion and ensure that the facts it alleged constituted a prima facie case. The motion to dismiss did not allege any facts other than that the firearm was not concealed, and was not concealed as contemplated by section 790.01(2).
Point one of the traverse stated that the state specifically denied that the firearm was not concealed. Concealment is an ultimate fact, as it is an element of the crime. See § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). The traverse alleged the further fact that the gun “was located on or near the floorboard of his motor vehicle, in close proximity to the area located below the driver’s seat.” This was a sufficient traverse.
We also conclude that point two of the traverse created an issue of material fact as to whether the gun was concealed as contemplated by the statute. The term “concealed” must be given its usual and ordinary meaning. State v. Teague, 475 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1985). Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1981), is the seminal case interpreting the statute, and the traverse quoted language from Ensor at 354, which sufficiently created an issue of material fact: whether the gun, located on the floorboard of the vehicle, was hidden from the “ordinary sight of another person.”
The “ordinary sight of another person” is defined to mean “the ordinary and casual observation of another in the normal associations of life.” Ensor, 403 So. 2d at 354. Construing this in a light most favorable to the state, the facts alleged in the traverse together with the state’s citation of Ensor, were sufficient to avoid the motion to dismiss.
REVERSED.
HERSEY, C.J., LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ferris Michele Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…f, fatal to a criminal charge, as the trial court must still consider the facts alleged in the motion to dismiss to determine whether a prima facie case has been established. See State v. Armstrong, 616 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Gale, 575 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also State v. Yarborough, 571 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Higgins, 437 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). If the facts alleged in the motion establish a pri-ma fac…
-
State v. Sammons, 889 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ent here because the facts did not indicate an entire lack of care or supervision by the parent. The State was required to show something beyond the fact that the child was left in the vehicle while the mother was in the building. See State v. Gale, 575 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (State must “ensure that the facts it alleged constituted a prima facie case.”). To make a prima facie case, the State was required to adduce some fact tending to show that the mother had placed herself where she could not p…
-
State v. Antonial Walker, 705 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ation charging attempted murder. The state’s traverse denied material allegations of the sworn motion to dismiss and set forth allegations on each element of the charge. See State v. Weinstein, 623 So. 2d 835, 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Gale, 575 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The Appellee’s motion to dismiss alleges that there were no disputed facts and that the following undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case: Appellee wa…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elton E. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Teague, 475 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1985)
- Slay v. State, 508 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- State v. Garth Bailey, 508 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)