KEISHA MARIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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 possession of each stolen credit card constitutes a separate offense and that any error in impeaching with an un-videotaped deposition was harmless.
Keisha Marin was convicted of two counts of intent to defraud by possessing two stolen credit cards from the same individual at the same time. The Sta…
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 Unit Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Keisha Marin raises two issues on appeal: first, whether she can be convicted of two separate offenses of intent to defraud another by having “possession, custody, or control” of two credit cards stolen from the same individual when under the allegations and proof such custody occurred “during the same time and space,” and second, whether it was error for the court to permit the State to impeach "with the deposition (which was not videotaped) of a person under sixteen. We affirm on both issues.
In State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1985), the supreme court explained its “a/any” rule as follows: “We reasoned that Grappin may be charged in a five-count information with five thefts because the article ‘a’ prefaced firearm. We noted that the use of the article ‘a’ in reference to ‘firearm’ in section 812.014(2)(b)8 clearly shows that the legislature intended to make each firearm a separate unit of prosecution.” Watts, 462 So. 2d at 814.
The statute under which Marin was charged makes it a crime for one who intends to defraud another to have “a counterfeit credit card ... in his possession, custody, or control ...” A “counterfeit credit card” is defined to include a stolen credit card. Therefore, under the Watt’s “a/any” rule, the legislature intended to make the possession of each stolen credit card a separate unit of prosecution.
On the issue relating to the deposition of the fifteen year old witness which was not videotaped, we find that any error was harmless. The deposition was audio recorded and clearly demonstrated that the witness, whose mother was present throughout the deposition, was not intimidated or mistreated in any fashion. It simply did not affect the result of this ease in any way.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKNIGHT v. State, 906 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ithin the ambit of this commonsense approach is the “a/any test,” which is a “valuable but nonexclusive means to assist courts in determining the intended unit of prosecution.” Bautista, 863 So. 2d at 1188; see also Wallace; Grappin; Marin v. State, 684 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). When the article “a” is used by the Legislature in the text of the statute, the intent of the Legislature is clear that each discrete act constitutes an allowable unit of prosecution. Bautista; Bryan v. State, [*372] 865 So. 2d…
-
State v. Rubio, 917 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…the evil to be corrected, the legislative history, and the pertinent case law that has applied the statute or similar enactments. Bautista; McKnight. Included within this common sense approach is the “a/any test.” Bautista; Wallace; Marin v. State, 684 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). When the article “a” is used by the Legislature in the text of the statute, the intent of the Legislature is clear that each discrete act constitutes an allowable unit of prosecution. Bautista; Marin. However, use of the adject…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Watts, 462 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1985)