State v. Thompson, 58324
| Decision Date | 20 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 58324,58324 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Heyward THOMPSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Gerald R. Hart, Jacksonville, for respondent.
The First District Court of Appeal has certified its decision in Thompson v. State, 378 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), as passing on a question of great public interest because that decision will affect a Florida standard jury instruction in criminal cases. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972), and reverse the district court's decision.
A jury convicted Thompson of possession of a short-barreled shotgun in violation of section 790.221, Florida Statutes (1977). 1 The district court reversed his conviction, holding that the state needed to prove, as an element of the crime, that Thompson's shotgun was not an antique weapon. To support its holding, the court quoted the following general rule, as stated in Baeumel v. State: 2
if there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or subsequent statute, that is a matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party.
Immediately preceding the above-quoted rule, however, the Baeumel court set out the other part of that rule:
"In a statutory offense, it depends very much, though not exclusively, on the words of the statute, whether a particular matter is one of defense, or whether the negative of the matter enters into the definition of the crime ...."
26 Fla. at 75, 7 So. at 372 (). After citing the complete rule, the court held that whether Baeumel was a druggist was a matter of defense, not an element which the state had to disprove, notwithstanding the relative locations of the definition and the exception in the statute.
Looking at the words of the instant statute, we find the antique weapon proviso to be an exception just as much as the exception in 790.221(3). 3 We cannot determine the reason for placing that exception in the statute's first subsection, but we also cannot divine any legislative intent that lack of an exemption is an element of the offense. See State v. Buchman, 361 So.2d 692 (Fla.1978). We hold, therefore, that whether a proscribed weapon is an antique 4 is a matter of defense; the state is not required to prove the negative as an element of the offense.
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and this case is remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
1 § 790.221 provides:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) Any person convicted of violating this section is guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary not to exceed 5 years.
(3) Firearms in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2015–06, SC15–1872.
...Assault784.0118.1195 So.3d 368 Comments*A claim that a firearm is an antique firearm is an affirmative defense. State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla.1980). It is undecided whether a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the firearm was an antique firearm or whether the st......
-
Royal v. State
...the statute was a prepositional phrase contained in the enacting clause of the statute. The opposite result was reached in State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla.1980) and State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla.1982). In Thompson, the statute outlawed possession of certain firearms and provided ......
-
State v. Drowne
...That fact satisfied the probable cause requirement without the necessity of disproving defenses in the affidavit. See State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla.1980).3 For example: "He said there was going to be trouble!"; or "He said the place was on fire"; or "He said there was a problem."4 T......
-
State v. Snell, 79-823
...with this opinion. QUASHED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. 1 Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(B).2 See State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1980); Holmes v. State, 389 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).4 Se......