NATHANIEL WARREN, 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.
Warren was convicted of robbery and aggravated assault after pointing a pistol at a robbery victim. The court held that a pistol pointed at someone during a robbery constitutes a deadly weapon under Florida law regardless of whether the gun is operable, affirming the aggravated assault conviction.
An inoperable pistol pointed at someone during the course of a robbery is a deadly weapon within the meaning of Florida's aggravated assault statute, regardless of whether the firearm is actually operable.
[1] A pistol pointed at someone during the course of a robbery constitutes a deadly weapon for the purposes of aggravated assault, regardless of whether the pistol is operabl…
[2] A defendant's conviction for aggravated assault may be sustained even if a related firearm possession charge is dismissed, provided the elements of aggravated assault are…
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“when, as in this case, a pistol is pointed at someone during the course of a robbery, the pistol, whether operable or inoperable, is a deadly weapon within the meaning of § 784.04”
The court's holding on the central legal issue of whether an inoperable gun qualifies as a deadly weapon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarren was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and unlawful firearm possession. At trial, the court granted a motion for acquittal on the charge…
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 Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nathaniel Warren was charged by information with robbery, aggravated assault, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. A jury trial was held, during which the trial court granted Warren’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the count of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. The jury found Warren guilty of robbery and aggravated assault. The trial judge adjudicated him guilty on those counts and dismissed the charge of unlawful possession by a convicted felon. Warren was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life for robbery, and to a con current five year sentence for aggravated assault. In this appeal, he only seeks review of his conviction on the charge of aggravated assault.
Defendant contends that because he was exonerated of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, although he pointed the pistol at the victim of the robbery, the proof at trial was insufficient to show that the firearm was operable and, therefore, he cannot be convicted of aggravated assault.
Since the offense in this case occurred prior to July 1, 1975, it is governed by § 784.04, Fla.Stat., which in part states:
“Whoever assaults another with a deadly weapon, without intent to kill, shall be guilty of an aggravated assault. ...”
The pivotal question presented on this appeal of the defendant’s conviction is whether or not an inoperable gun pointed at someone is a deadly weapon. We hold that when, as in this case, a pistol is pointed at someone during the course of a robbery, the pistol, whether operable or inoperable, is a deadly weapon within the meaning of § 784.04, supra. Reasoning similar to that found in Bass v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 25, is applicable here. In that case, it is stated at page 27:
“Certainly, when one is confronted by another with a gun and does not know it to be unloaded, the natural reaction is to assume that the gun can be fired and can inflict great bodily harm. In such a situation and under the proper circumstances, it would not be unreasonable for the person assaulted to attempt to repel his assailant by inflicting upon him bodily harm, which attempt might result in the death of the assailant or in the deaths of bystanders in the event that the assailant was not subdued. In such a situation, the possibility of death is not unforeseeable even though the assailant did not load his gun.”
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M. M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…situation, the possibility of death is not unforeseeable even though the assailant did not loan his gun. This view comports with the general definition of a “deadly weapon” as one likely to produce death or great bodily injury. In Warren v. State, 332 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), the court affirmed the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon where the pistol involved was not shown to have been operable and held: The pivotal question presented on this appeal of the defendant’s conviction is whethe…1 / 2
-
Nash v. State, 374 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…. 3rd DCA 1976); Forchion v. State, 214 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968); Solitro v. State, 165 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). . Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Warren v. State, 332 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Dawson v. State, 338 So. 242 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Commonwealth v. Tarrant, 367 Mass. 411, 326 N.E. 2d 710 (1975). . 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law, § 200 (14th ed. 1979); 6 Am.Jur.2d, Assault and Battery § 34; Annot., 79 ALR2d 1424 (…
-
M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…(1981), then that instrument is a deadly weapon as a matter of law for the purpose of the aggravated assault statute, Section 784.021(l)(a) Florida Statutes (1979), regardless of whether it is loaded or capable of being fired. See, Warren v. State, 332 So. 2d 361 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (pistol is a deadly weapon whether operable or inoperable). See, e.g., Machado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979) (trial judge in ruling that pistol was “firearm” correctly did not…
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
- Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)