Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

448 So. 2d 604

R.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-04-17

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1998

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that the juvenile intended to use the instrument as a deadly weapon”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 589 So. 2d 438 - PC v. State

Relies on McCray v. State · 421 So. 2d 746 - Miller v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-04-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The juvenile appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for carrying a concealed weapon. We reverse.

¶2Section 790.001(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981) defines a concealed weapon as follows:

“Concealed weapon” means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or any other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal said weapon from the ordinary sight of another person.

¶3Under the statute, the instrument carried by the juvenile may only be construed as a concealed weapon if it is either a “dirk” or “any other deadly weapon.” There was no proof adduced at trial that the instrument was a “straight stabbing weapon” so as to constitute a dirk, see Miller v. State, 421 So.2d 746, 747, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), nor was there testimony that the juvenile intended to use the instrument as a deadly weapon. See McCray v. State, 358 So.2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

¶4Reversed.

/448/so2d/604 · .json · Public domain