P.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the concealed instrument was a deadly weapon or intended to be used as such.
A police officer observed the appellant carrying a ruler which concealed a letter opener. The appellant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an adjudication of delinquency in connection with the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. We reverse.
The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that a police officer observed the appellant carrying an object in his hand. Upon examining the object, the police officer identified it as “a ruler” that had appellant’s name scratched on the back. When the ends of the ruler were pulled apart, it opened to reveal a letter openér. Section 790.001(3)(a) states that a “concealed weapon” is “any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal it from the ordinary sight of another person” (emphasis added).
In view of the fact that the letter opener was not visible unless, and until, the two sections of the ruler were pulled apart, we have no problem in a finding that the letter opener, as such, was “concealed”.
The insufficiency of the State’s evidence relates to a total lack of evidence in the record to establish, or even suggest, that the letter opener in question fits the definition of being a “deadly ” weapon or “that the juvenile intended to use the instrument as a deadly weapon”. See R.T. v. State, 448 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and McCray v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Since this record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that the appellant used the letter opener in such a manner that would enable a court to find that it was being used as a “deadly” weapon, the adjudication of delinquency in connection with that charge must be reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…was not a concealed weapon. That same court, however, recognized that items such as razor blades, nail files, keys or hatpins could be concealed weapons if used in a threatening manner so that they might be considered deadly. See also P.C. v. State, 589 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (concealed letter opener was not a concealed weapon unless there was evidence that the defendant used it as a deadly weapon); C.H. v. State, 548 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (razor blade is common household item which is not a co…
-
State v. Fleming, 606 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…tion 944.-47(l)(a)5, an instrument is a weapon if it is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use it as such. Cf. P.C. v. State, 589 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (adjudication of delinquency in connection with charge of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.001(3)(a), Florida Statutes, reversed; no evidence in record to even suggest that the letter opener in question fit…
-
T.S. v. State, 734 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…aled weapon, questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the adjudication of delinquency in connection with that charge. Because insufficient evidence was presented to support this adjudication of delinquency, we reverse. See P.C. v. State, 589 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) [*1062] (finding evidence insufficient to support adjudication of delinquency for carrying a concealed weapon where there was no evidence to even suggest that instrument fit the definition of being a “deadly” weapon or that the ju…
Authorities Cited
- Eldridge A. McCRAY v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- R.T. v. State, 448 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)