J.W., 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 juvenile was convicted of first-degree armed burglary after forcing entry into a home with a pocket knife, but did not threaten, brandish, or use the knife against the resident. The court reversed, holding that the pocket knife did not constitute a dangerous weapon under the circumstances, and that the conviction should be reduced to simple burglary.
The court held that it was error to convict the defendant under the first-degree armed burglary statute. Although a pocket knife could theoretically constitute a dangerous weapon if used in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury, it did not qualify as such under the circumstances of this case.
[1] A pocket knife does not constitute a dangerous weapon for purposes of first-degree armed burglary unless it is used in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily in…
[2] The mere possession of a pocket knife during a residential entry, without any threat or use of the weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury, is ins…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a pocket knife could conceivably constitute a dangerous weapon if actually used 'in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury.'”
Establishes the theoretical framework for when a pocket knife might be a dangerous weapon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile forcibly entered a home while carrying a pocket knife. Upon seeing the resident, he immediately turned and fled the scene without threateni…
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 Dangerous Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
Defendant, a juvenile, forcibly entered a home with a pocket knife in his hand. He did not threaten the resident with it or wave it at her. Actually, as soon as he saw her, he turned and immediately ran outside and away from the scene.
Inside, the victim had heard him “jiggling and turning the doorknob.” When he entered she saw the knife in his hand and said she was scared:
“[a] lot of crazy thoughts went through my mind. What he had the ability to do.... He had the ability to come in the door and no telling what else he could have did. I mean I didn’t have anything to protect myself or nothing.”
The question is whether this testimony is enough to refuse to reduce a charge of first degree armed burglary (with a dangerous weapon) to simple burglary of a dwelling.1
Under nearly identical facts in Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we recognized that a pocket knife could conceivably constitute a dangerous weapon if actually used “in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury.” Nevertheless, we held that under the circumstances it did not qualify as a dangerous weapon for purposes of that case.
That decision was released more than a decade ago. Since then the Legislature has not made any attempt to amend the statute to treat all burglars wielding pocket knives as qualifying for first degree burglary, even if they do so non-threateningly. Accordingly, it was error to convict defendant under the first degree burglary statute and to refuse to reduce the conviction to simple burglary of a dwelling.
REVERSED.
WARNER, J., concurs.
STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. § 810.02(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001).
STONE, J.,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that we are bound by Arroyo to reverse. I would, however, urge the legislature to review the statutory definitions of weapon, dangerous weapon, and deadly weapon, particularly as applied to the objects used in the course of committing a serious crime. It is hard to explain why, as presently interpreted, we leave it to a jury to determine whether the defendant will be subject to an enhanced sentence when an unloaded BB gun is carried in the course of the crime, as in Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1997), but prevent the jury’s involvement when an open pocket knife is used. Patently, the threat of extensive harm to a victim is more real in the case of the knife.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suit v. State, 901 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…cases concerning jury determinations of deadliness. See Mitchell v. State, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1997); Jones v. State, 869 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Stanley, 757 So. 2d at 1275; E.S. v. State, 886 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); J.W. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); King v. State, 779 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); D.M.H. v. State, 717 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). These cases, however, involve items that are either commonly recognizable, like firearms or knives, or items that were a…
-
Saint-Fort v. State, 222 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…not dispositive. Id. at 988. In a third case, this court implied that behavior indicating the planned use of a pocketknife would have established that it was a dangerous weapon for purposes of enhancement under the burglary statute. J.W. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1111, 1111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (finding that a pocketknife was not a dangerous weapon where the defendant forcibly entered a home with the pocketknife in his hand but “did not threaten the resident with it or wave it at her”); see also Santiago v. Sta…
Authorities Cited
- Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1997)
- Salvadore Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)