Dale v. State
| Decision Date | 23 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 87691,87691 |
| Citation | 703 So.2d 1045 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S670 Curtis DALE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals and Jean-Jacques Darius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
We have for review Dale v. State, 669 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), wherein the district court certified:
Can a jury permissibly find a BB gun to be a deadly weapon and a defendant guilty of armed robbery when the evidence shows that the BB gun was found unloaded, without a CO2 cartridge, and no evidence was presented that the BB gun was loaded at the time of the offense, where the defendant stated simply "I have a gun" during the commission of the robbery?
Id. at 1113. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer in the affirmative and approve Dale.
Curtis Dale entered a bread store and pretended to buy a loaf of bread, but when the clerk opened the cash register, Dale said, "I got a gun," raised his shirt, and showed a black object. After taking the money, Dale threatened, "You call anybody, I will be back." He was arrested shortly later and police recovered a gas-operated BB or pellet gun, resembling a .9 mm Beretta pistol, hidden at a friend's house with other items from the robbery. The gun was in working order, but was without BBs, pellets, or a gas cartridge. Dale was convicted of armed robbery with a deadly weapon, and the district court affirmed, certifying the above question.
Dale contends that a BB gun "is not a deadly weapon per se," and that "on the deadly weapon continuum, a BB gun is more like a toy gun or fake gun." The State, on the other hand, argues that a BB gun is a deadly weapon. 1
Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1995), defines the crime of robbery, and provides in relevant part:
(2)(a) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in [the penalty statutes].
(b) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in [the penalty statutes].
(c) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in [the penalty statutes].
Although section 812.13 fails to define the terms "firearm" and "weapon," the definitions for these terms contained in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions are a correct statement of the law:
A "firearm" is legally defined as (adapt from F.S. 790.001 as required by allegations). 2 ....
A "weapon" is legally defined to mean any object that could be used to cause death or inflict serious bodily harm.
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 156(a). Whether a particular "weapon" is in fact deadly is a jury question:
A "deadly weapon" has generally been defined to be one likely to produce death or great bodily injury. Whether or not the weapon involved is to be classed as "deadly" is a factual question to be resolved by the jury under appropriate instructions.
Goswick v. State, 143 So.2d 817, 820 (Fla.1962), receded from on other grounds, State v. Smith, 240 So.2d 807 (Fla.1970).
The issue posed here is whether the "deadliness" of a BB gun is properly a jury question, or whether a BB gun is so innocuous that it is always a non-deadly weapon as a matter of law. Our review of pertinent caselaw reveals that Florida's district courts have overwhelmingly concluded that a BB or pellet gun can be a deadly weapon, and that the issue of "deadliness" is a jury question. 3 We agree with the district courts and hold that whether a BB or pellet gun is a deadly weapon--i.e., whether it is "likely to produce death or great bodily injury"--is a factual question to be answered by the jury in each case. Goswick, 143 So.2d at 820. The jury's finding will be sustained on review if supported by competent substantial evidence.
In the present case, the jury had a sufficient basis for concluding that Dale's weapon was deadly. Of key importance is the fact that the jury had an opportunity to view the weapon first-hand. Further, Officer Stone testified concerning the circumstances under which the gun was found and the condition it was in when found, and Investigator Corder showed the jury in detail how the gun operated. The fact that the gun was recovered without BBs, pellets, or gas cartridge is not dispositive. 4 Competent substantial evidence supports the jury's finding.
We answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve Dale.
It is so ordered.
I agree with Justice Overton that how a weapon was used during a robbery is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not it can be characterized as a deadly weapon and that the standard jury instruction should be corrected to this extent. I can also visualize circumstances in which a trial judge may properly hold, as a matter of law, that a particular weapon was not a deadly weapon. In most cases, however, the issue must be decided by the jury, and in this case, I cannot say that the judge erred in permitting the jury to conclude that the BB gun was a deadly weapon.
This case is not about whether this defendant should be convicted and sentenced for robbery. It is about the maximum length of the sentence that can be imposed for such a conviction.
If a defendant does not carry a weapon during the commission of a robbery, the offense is a second-degree felony that carries a maximum term of fifteen years' imprisonment.
If a defendant carries a "weapon" during the commission of a robbery, the offense is a first-degree felony that carries a maximum term of up to thirty years' imprisonment.
If a defendant carries a firearm or other "deadly weapon" during the commission of a robbery, the offense is a life felony, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
As explained below in more detail, I believe that, under the robbery statute, the term "weapon" should be defined as an instrument "capable" of causing death or serious bodily harm, and the term "deadly weapon" should be defined as an instrument "likely" to cause death or serious bodily harm. In my view, carrying an unloaded BB or pellet gun, such as the one carried by the defendant in this case, falls, as a matter of law, in the category of a weapon that is "capable" of causing serious bodily injury and harm. It is unreasonable and illogical and makes no legal sense to place a BB or pellet gun in the same category as a firearm (such as a .38, .45, or a .9 millimeter pistol or a sawed-off shotgun) or a deadly weapon (such as an explosive device, chemical weapon, tear gas gun, billie club, metallic knuckles, or large knife), which represent weapons that are "likely" to cause death or bodily harm.
In finding a BB or pellet gun to be a deadly weapon, the majority has totally blurred the categories of deadly weapon and weapon and has provided an absurd result when we compare the majority's holding in this case to cases involving somewhat similar situations. For instance, we recently held, consistent with an attorney general opinion, that a pocketknife with a blade no longer than four inches is not a weapon at all given that a common pocketknife is excluded from the statutory definition of the term "weapon." 5 Applying that finding here, a robbery committed with a pocketknife that has a blade of four inches when closed but has a total length of eight inches when open would be a second-degree felony because no "weapon" was carried; but a robbery committed with an unloaded BB or pellet gun stuck in a defendant's belt is a life felony. How does this make any reasonable or logical sense?
I recognize that in failing to provide a definition for the terms "weapon" and "deadly weapon" in the robbery statute, the legislature has placed this Court in the position of having to do so. The problem in attempting to define these terms becomes apparent when reviewing the available definitions. For instance, in section 790.001, Florida Statutes (1995) (weapons and firearms), the term "weapon" is defined as "any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a weapon itself is defined to include a "deadly weapon."
On the other hand, at common law a deadly weapon was defined as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landrum v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr.
...harm.Fla Stat. §§ 784.011, 784.021(1)(a). Whether a BB gun is a deadly weapon is a question of fact for the jury. See Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 1997) (whether a BB or pellet gun is a deadly weapon is a factual question to be answered by the jury); Young v. State, 33 So. 3d ......
-
Thornton v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...or great bodily harm." Now, whether a weapon is a "deadly weapon" is a factual question to be answered by the jury." SeeDale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 1997).Here, Waters was struck across the back of his head with what Waters believed was a gun. Waters fell to the floor, was "ex......
-
Sanchez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...unloaded, or incapable of inflicting death or great bodily harm - is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 1997) (holding that an unloaded BB gun was found by the jury to be a "deadly weapon"); Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 562 (Fla......
-
Cassidy v. McNeil
...was sufficient evidence to make it a jury question whether the pocketknife wielded by Cassidy was a deadly weapon. See Dale v. State, 703 So.2d 1045, 1047 (Fla.1997) (whether a particular weapon is in fact deadly is a jury Cassidy was also convicted of tampering with evidence, and he claims......