SHIRLEY B. QUICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
This case comes to us on direct appeal from a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 342 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), wherein the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1975). The constitutional question raised by appellant was resolved in our recent decision in Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1977).
Accordingly, the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal is affirmed.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
This case comes to us on direct appeal from a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 342 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), wherein the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1975). The constitutional question raised by appellant was resolved in our recent decision in Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1977).
We have considered all other points and find them without merit.
Accordingly, the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal is affirmed.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)…d with evidence to show that, due to circumstances beyond his control, he had no ability to pay. We reject the argument that this presumption improperly infringes upon a criminal contempt defendant’s fifth amendment privilege. See State v. Buch-man, 361 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1978). This type of required response has been approved in other criminal matters. See § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983) (statutory inference that a person proved to be in possession of recently stolen property knew or should have known that the p…
-
State v. Heyward Thompson, 390 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1980)…the exception in 790.221(3).3 We cannot determine the reason for placing that exception in the statute’s first subsection, but we also cannot divine any legislative intent that lack of an exemption is an element of the offense. See State v. Buchman, 361 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1978). We hold, therefore, that whether a proscribed weapon is an antique 4 is a matter of defense; the state is not required to prove the negative as an element of the offense. The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and…
-
Hicks v. State, 407 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…to-wit: a shotgun or pistol as defined by section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes, in violation of sections 810.-02(1), 810.02(2)(b), 775.087(2), Florida Statutes. . For other cases applying this principle in different contexts, see: State v. Buchman, 361 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1978), (sale of unregistered securities); State v. Kahler, 232 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1970), (possession of certain unlabeled drugs as prima facie evidence that possession is unlawful); Benitez v. State, 172 So. 2d 520 (Fla.2d DCA 1965) (possession of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howard Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1976)
- Green's Pool Serv., Inc. v. MacINTYRE, 342 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quick v. State, 342 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)