R.V. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 12, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-11-12

Relies on 440 So. 2d 350 - Tafero v. State · CJR v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2015

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FERGUSON, Judge.

¶1We agree with the trial court’s factual determination that a nunchaku (“num-chucks”), a potentially .lethal device which originated from the martial arts, is a deadly weapon. Unlike other common objects which may be deadly only because of their use or threatened use, the sole modern use of a nunchaku is to cause great bodily harm.1 Appellants, who carried the nun-chaku on their persons in a concealed manner, were properly adjudicated delinquent for carrying a concealed weapon. See *913C.J.R. v. State, 429 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 351 (Fla.1983).

¶2Affirmed.

¶3. Appellant R.V. argues that nunchaku sticks have legitimate uses, noting, for example, that they were originally designed as farm tools used to separate chaff from grain. The instrument's historical origin does not help persuade us that it has constructive social utility on the streets of urban Miami.