EMM v. State, 3D02-2596.

Decision Date12 February 2003
Docket NumberNo. 3D02-2596.,3D02-2596.
Citation836 So.2d 1125
PartiesE.M.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Charlie Christ, Attorney General and Andrea D. England (Fort Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and WELLS, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The only point raised on this appeal from a finding of delinquency based upon an aggravated battery is that the three-foot long broomstick used by the juvenile's co-respondent to strike the victim did not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). We disagree and affirm. See H.E.S. v. State, 773 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Mitchell v. State, 698 So.2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review granted, 701 So.2d 868 (Fla.1997), approved, 703 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 1997); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See generally D.C. v. State, 567 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Compare Forchion v. State, 214 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)(broom handle thrown at victim not used as a deadly weapon); Perez v. State, 825 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(barricade thrown at victim not used as deadly weapon).

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rudin v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22. Dezember 2015
    ...A broomstick has been found to be and to not be a deadly weapon by different courts depending on the evidence. Compare E.M.M. v. State, 836 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), with Brown v. State, 86 So.3d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).The ability of the fact finder to view the purported deadly weapon......
  • Alm v. State, 3D02-2593.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 5. März 2003
    ...broomstick used in this attack qualified as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). See E.M.M. v. State, 836 So.2d 1125, (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). There also was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that respondent intentionally used the broomstick......
  • Bentley v. State, 3D02-2891.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12. Februar 2003

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT