ANDREW MALLARD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a concealed weapons conviction because the trial court erred in excluding photographs that would have demonstrated the gun could not physically fit under the car seat, supporting the defendant's claim it was in plain view rather than concealed.
Exclusion of photographs demonstrating a gun could not fit under a car seat was an abuse of discretion where the photographs were relevant to whether the weapon could be concealed.
[1] Photographs demonstrating the physical impossibility of concealing an object in a particular location are admissible where they directly contradict the state's evidence r…
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 intelligence“Exclusion of the proffered photographs was erroneous and an abuse of discretion since a sufficient predicate had been laid for their admission and they were relevant both to defendant's testimony and to rebutting the testimony of the state's witness, as to whether or not it was even possible for the gun to be concealed under the car seat.”
Court's explanation of why exclusion of photographs was reversible error
Defendant was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon allegedly found under the seat of his car. Defendant sought to introduce photograp…
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 Carrying A Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant defendant was arrested and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, to-wit: a pistol, allegedly found by police under the seat of the defendant’s foreign car. At trial, defendant attempted to introduce into evidence photographs taken subsequent to arrest and made in his presence showing or attempting to show that the gun could not have fit under the seat of the car under any circumstances. This was contrary to the testimony of the state’s witness and directly in support of appellant’s assertion that the weapon could only have been in plain view and not “concealed” under the seat. The court sustained the state’s objections to the admission of these photographs and defendant was convicted and sentenced to one year in the county jail. Defendant appeals alleging error in the exclusion of the photographs. We agree with appellant’s contention and reverse.
Exclusion of the proffered photographs was erroneous and an abuse of discretion since a sufficient predicate had been laid for their admission and they were relevant both to defendant’s testimony and to rebutting the testimony of the state’s witness, as to whether or not it was even possible for the gun to be concealed under the car seat. This was an abuse of the judge’s discretion. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed is hereby reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.