E.M.M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The only point raised on this appeal from a finding of delinquency based upon an aggravated battery is that the three-foot long broomstick used by the juvenile’s co-respondent to strike the victim did not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). We disagree and affirm. See H.E.S. v. State, 773 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 701 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1997), approved, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1997); Taylor v. State, 672 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See generally D.C. v. State, 567 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Compare Forchion v. State, 214 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)(broom handle thrown at victim not used as a deadly weapon); Perez v. State, 825 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(barricade thrown at victim not used as deadly weapon).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudin v. State, 182 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…s, long been settled that a large stick can be a deadly weapon. Lindsay v. State, 67 Fla. 111, 64 So. 501 (1914). A broomstick has been found to be and to not be a deadly weapon by different courts depending on the evidence. Compare E.M.M. v. State, 836 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), with Brown v. State, 86 So. 3d 569. (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The ability of the fact finder to view the purported deadly weapons is a key consideration in an appellate court’s evaluation of whether competent, substantial evidence su…
-
A.L.M. v. State, 853 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…companion case involving a co-respondent who participated in the attack upon the victim, this court held that the broomstick used in this attack qualified as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). See E.M.M. v. State, 836 So. 2d 1125, (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). There also was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that respondent intentionally used the broomstick to inflict great bodily harm [*434] upon the victim. See Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1997)
- Daniels v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- D.C. v. State, 567 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Forchion v. State, 214 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Taylor v. State, 672 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- H.E.S. v. State, 773 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Amauri Perez v. State, 825 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)