THOMAS MCGEEHAN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. BARBARA MCGEEHAN, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
  …is a factual question to be answered by the jury in each case.” Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla.1997); see also Mims v. State, 662 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Nixon, 295 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, L.B. is distinguishable. See also Walls v. State, 730 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We have recently rejected the arguments raised by appellant relating to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. See Woods v. State,…
• Salvadore Arroyo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
  …es of applying statutes employing those terms. We think not and follow the lead of our sister court in holding that it depends upon the use made of the pocketknife and other facts involved in a particular case. The third district, in State v. Nixon, 295 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), addressed the question whether a common pocket knife could be a “deadly weapon” since it was expressly excluded from the enumerated weapons in section 790.001(13). In answering that question affirmatively, the third district note…
• Bunkley v. State, 882 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2004)
  …er that the carrying of a common pocket knife by a citizen should not constitute a crime, in view of the general custom of people to carry such knives for convenience and useful purposes unrelated to any criminal intent or activity. State v. Nixon, 295 So. 2d 121, 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also L.B. v, State, 681 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). B. Relevant Facts of L.B. and Bunkley Due process requires that the clarification of the common pocketknife exception in L.B. be applied in this case becaus…

Authorities Cited

• Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1967)