Marin v. State, 96-1245
| Decision Date | 13 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1245,96-1245 |
| Citation | 684 So.2d 859 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2639 Keisha MARIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Fifth District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Steven J. Guardiano, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Keisha Marin raises two issues on appeal: first, whether she can be convicted of two separate offenses of intent to defraud another by having "possession, custody, or control" of two credit cards stolen from the same individual when under the allegations and proof such custody occurred "during the same time and space," and second, whether it was error for the court to permit the State to impeach with the deposition (which was not videotaped) of a person under sixteen. We affirm on both issues.
In State v. Watts, 462 So.2d 813 (Fla.1985), the supreme court explained its "a/any" rule as follows: Watts, 462 So.2d at 814.
The statute under which Marin was charged makes it a crime for one who intends to defraud another to have "a counterfeit credit card ... in his possession, custody, or control ..." A "counterfeit credit card" is defined to include a stolen credit card. Therefore, under the Watt's "a/any" rule, the legislature intended to make the possession of each stolen credit card a separate unit of prosecution.
On the issue relating to the deposition of the fifteen year old witness which was not videotaped, we find that any error was harmless. The deposition was audio recorded and clearly demonstrated that the witness, whose mother was present throughout the deposition, was not intimidated or mistreated in any fashion. It simply did not affect the result of this case in any way.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rubio
...enactments. Bautista; McKnight. Included within this common sense approach is the "a/any test." Bautista; Wallace; Marin v. State, 684 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). When the article "a" is used by the Legislature in the text of the statute, the intent of the Legislature is clear that each ......
-
McKnight v. State, 5D04-1261.
...assist courts in determining the intended unit of prosecution." Bautista, 863 So.2d at 1188; see also Wallace; Grappin; Marin v. State, 684 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). When the article "a" is used by the Legislature in the text of the statute, the intent of the Legislature is clear that ......