LUIS G. VINCENTE, 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 trial court erred by excluding defense witnesses without a sufficient inquiry, and this error was not harmless.
The state moved to exclude two late-disclosed defense witnesses the day before trial. The trial court granted the motion after a perfunctory inquiry. …
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 Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Luis G. Vincente appeals his conviction for aggravated battery. We reverse.
The day prior to trial, the state moved to exclude two late-disclosed defense witnesses. After a perfunctory inquiry, the trial court granted the state’s motion and excluded the two defense witnesses.* The trial court’s inquiry fell well short of that which is required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). See Brazell v. State, 570 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla.1990). We are unable to conclude that the exclusion of the two witnesses was harmless. See generally State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995).
Defendant next contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict because the evidence did not support the conclusion that the screwdriver wielded by the defendant constituted a deadly weapon. We disagree. The evidence showed that the defendant employed the screwdriver as a knife with which to stab the victim. The evidence was sufficient to find that the screwdriver was a deadly weapon. See Hallman v. State, 305 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3226, 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976); see also People v. Simons, 42 Cal. App.4th 1100, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 (1996); Frey v. State, 580 N.E. 2d 362, 364 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).
Defendant also contends that the trial court should have sustained the defense objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument. We reject that claim on the authority of State v. Sheperd, 479 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla.1985).
The conviction and sentences are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
*
The state’s motion also sought exclusion of a third late-listed defense witness. The defense withdrew that particular witness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kirvin, 718 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…strued, in an appropriate case, such as this, to require that for such a tool to be ‘illegal’, it must be used as a burglary tool—thus becoming a facet of the burglary, breaking and entering transaction, etc.” (footnote omitted)); Vincente v. State, 669 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that evidence was sufficient to find screwdriver was deadly weapon where evidence showed defendant employed screwdriver as knife' with which to stab victim); Dydek v. State, 400 So. 2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…
-
Michaud v. State, 47 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…adly weapon. Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). However, an object can also be found to be a deadly weapon if used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm. See, e.g., Vincente v. State, 669 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (screwdriver constituted deadly weapon where it was employed by defendant as knife with which to stab victim); Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (sticks used to repeatedly strike victims constituted deadly weap…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 841 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tools, as charged. Gonzalez challenges both convictions. We affirm the conviction on count 1, and reverse the conviction on count 2. As to count 1, Gonzalez argues that a screwdriver is a “dangerous weapon” only if used as such, Vincente v. State, 669 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and that since the jury acquitted Gonzalez of assault, the jury necessarily determined thereby that the screwdriver was not used as a dangerous weapon. Thus, Gonzalez argues, he could not have been “armed,” relying heavily upon N…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- State v. Sheperd, 479 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1985)
- Hallman v. State, 305 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1974)
- Brazell v. State, 570 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1990)