P.C. v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2796,90-2796 |
| Citation | 589 So.2d 438 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2913 P.C., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Alphonso S. Milligan and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.
Appellant seeks review of an adjudication of delinquency in connection with the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. We reverse.
The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that a police officer observed the appellant carrying an object in his hand. Upon examining the object, the police officer identified it as "a ruler" that had appellant's name scratched on the back. When the ends of the ruler were pulled apart, it opened to reveal a letter opener.
Section 790.001(3)(a) states that a "concealed weapon" is "any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal it from the ordinary sight of another person" (emphasis added).
In view of the fact that the letter opener was not visible unless, and until, the two sections of the ruler were pulled apart, we have no problem in a finding that the letter opener, as such, was "concealed".
The insufficiency of the State's evidence relates to a total lack of evidence in the record to establish, or even suggest, that the letter opener in question fits the definition of being a "deadly " weapon or "that the juvenile intended to use the instrument as a deadly weapon". See R.T. v. State, 448 So.2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Robinson v. State, 547 So.2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and McCray v. State, 358 So.2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Since this record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that the appellant used the letter opener in such a manner that would enable a court to find that it was being used as a "deadly " weapon, the adjudication of delinquency in connection with that charge must be reversed.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tremblay, 93-1862
...or hatpins could be concealed weapons if used in a threatening manner so that they might be considered deadly. See also P.C. v. State, 589 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (concealed letter opener was not a concealed weapon unless there was evidence that the defendant used it as a deadly weapon......
-
State v. Fleming, s. 91-1525
...is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use it as such. Cf. P.C. v. State, 589 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (adjudication of delinquency in connection with charge of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.001(3)(a), Florid......
-
TS v. State, 98-759.
...that charge. Because insufficient evidence was presented to support this adjudication of delinquency, we reverse. See P.C. v. State, 589 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding evidence insufficient to support adjudication of delinquency for carrying a concealed weapon where there was no evid......