WILLIE JAMES MARTIN, 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.
A pocketknife can qualify as a deadly weapon in an aggravated battery prosecution when used in a manner likely to produce great bodily harm, and the trial court's conviction was affirmed.
A pocketknife can qualify as a deadly weapon when used to inflict injury likely to cause great bodily harm.
[1] A pocketknife may constitute a deadly weapon in an aggravated battery prosecution when used in a manner likely to produce great bodily harm, regardless of whether it qual…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin used a pocketknife to slash his victim's eye, causing injury. Martin was charged with aggravated battery.…
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 Great Bodily Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
The sole issue in this case is whether the knife used by appellant to assault and injure his victim by slashing his eye could not, as a matter of law, qualify as a deadly weapon in a prosecution for aggravated battery. The defendant characterizes the knife as a “pocketknife.” The defendant asserts a pocketknife can never be a deadly weapon; the State says anything can be a deadly weapon if used in a way likely to produce great bodily harm. The defendant relies on L.B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1997). L.B. involved a weapon possession charge, however. There, the court found that the term “common pocketknife” found in section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes (1995) was not unconstitutionally vague and included the knife at issue in that case. Here, we have a pocketknife (of some sort)1 used as a weapon to injure. A pocketknife can qualify as a deadly weapon. The case is not controlled by L.B. See Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Mims v. State, 662 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review denied, 673 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1996); Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Also, it is not adequately established in the record that the knife used by appellant was a ‘'common pocketknife.” See Walls v. State, 730 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caraballo v. State, 762 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…are combined with additional acts of prosecutorial overreaching ... the integrity of the judicial process has been compromised and the -resulting convictions and sentences irreparably tainted.” Id. at 7. Caraballo also relies on Williams v. State, 747 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (prosecutor improperly vouched for veracity of one of police officers by arguing in part that he was just doing his job and telling the truth),17 Henry v. State, 743 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (prosecutor improperly referr…
-
Johnson v. State, 801 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…r for the state to vouch for the credibility of a police officer by arguing that the jury should believe police officers solely because they are police officers. Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Williams v. State, 747 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Nevertheless, prosecutorial comments are not improper where, incident to evaluating a witness’ credibility, jurors are told to ask themselves what motive the officer would have to deceive them. Reyes v. State, 700 So. 2d 4…
-
Johnson v. State, 858 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…argue any reasons, if supported by the evidence, why a given witness might or might not be biased in a case, but the prosecutor may not properly argue that a police officer must be believed simply because he is a police officer.” Williams v. State, 747 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). However, here, neither the prosecutor’s observation that the retired officers had nothing to prove, nor the comment that if the detectives had wanted to make up a story, the stories would have been better, amounted to an ar…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- L.B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1997)
- Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Salvadore Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Walls v. State, 730 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Mims v. State, 662 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)