Duba v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1670,82-1670 |
| Citation | 446 So.2d 1167 |
| Parties | Gary Edward DUBA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The defendant, driving a van, pointed an air pistol at a victim and said, "Get in the van or I'll kill you." The victim fled. The defendant was apprehended, charged with, and convicted of, the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (§ 784.021(1)(a), Fla.Stat.) and the offense of attempted kidnapping (§§ 777.04 and 787.01(1)(a)3, Fla.Stat.).
Considering all of the facts and circumstances, including certain contents of the van, we find sufficient competent evidence for the charge of attempted kidnapping to go to the jury and from which the jury could infer (as it did) that the defendant had the specific mental intent to inflict bodily harm upon, or to terrorize, the victim as required by the kidnapping statute (§ 787.01(1)(a)3, Fla.Stat.). See State v. Williams, 444 So.2d 13 (Fla.1984); Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974); Brewer v. State, 413 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. den., 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983); Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
The air pistol in question was designed to expel as projectiles, small round metal pellets, or shot, commonly known as BB's, by the release of gas from a small container or "cartridge" of compressed carbon dioxide (CO sub2 ) gas. When seized by the police the air pistol lacked the necessary CO sub2 cartridge and none were found on the defendant or in the van. Further, the police found the pistol was inoperative when loaded with a CO sub2 cartridge. An issue at trial was whether the air pistol was a deadly weapon within the meaning of the aggravated assault statute.
The trial court prohibited the defense counsel from arguing to the jury that the particular air pistol was not in fact a deadly weapon because it did not contain the necessary CO sub2 cartridge and was in fact inoperative and incapable of expelling a projectile that could do bodily harm. Because that issue was a question for the jury to decide as a matter of fact, we hold the trial court erred and reverse the defendant's conviction of the aggravated assault charge.
M.R.R. v. State, 411 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and other cases hold that a firearm is a deadly weapon as a matter of law for purposes of the aggravated assault statute, regardless of whether it is loaded or capable of firing and expelling a projectile. As explained in Bass v. State, 232 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), a threat made with a gun can cause such subjective fear and reaction as to foreseeably cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant or bystanders even if the gun used in an assault is not loaded and is not itself directly capable of producing death or great bodily injury. While this may be true as a practical matter, it does not change the correct meaning of the term "a deadly weapon," which, as part of a criminal statute, must be strictly construed. Accordingly, we agree with Judge McNulty, dissenting in Jones v. State, 238 So.2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), and reject the expansive view of the definition of "a deadly weapon", contained in M.R.R. and Bass, supra.
We hold that whether or not an object is a deadly weapon is a question of fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence, taking into consideration its size, shape and material and the manner in which it was used or was capable of being used. All facts having probative value as to these matters are admissible on this issue and arguable by counsel and this includes facts relating to whether an object which may be capable of producing death or great bodily harm only by expelling a projectile was, at the relevant time, capable in fact of doing so. See Harpham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miholics v. Sec'y
...a deadly weapon is typically a factual determination to be made by the jury. See Michaud, 47 So.3d at 376; Duba v. State, 446 So.2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The trial court came to this conclusion in denying Miholics's motion for judgment of acquittal. The question of whether the Sta......
-
Mitchell v. State, 95-02169
...of law or whether deadliness was a factual question. See also Emshwiller v. State, 443 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In Duba v. State, 446 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the Fifth District expressly held that whether an air pistol was a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravated assault was ......
-
Mee Industries v. Dow Chemical Company, No. 08-16747 (11th Cir. 6/15/2010)
... ... state court. Dow removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Mee alleged in its complaint that Dow filed the ... ...
-
Dixon v. State
...battery." That would do violence to our long accepted mandate to construe criminal statutes strictly. See Duba v. State, 446 So.2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In Davis v. State, 565 So.2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we held that an indictment, which alleged the defendant kicked the victim ......