Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

735 So. 2d 481

Docket No. 92,864.

State v. Laster

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert LASTER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 29, 1999.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1999-04-29

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2009

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[W]e hold that if a defendant can establish that the premises were open to the public, then this is a complete defense. Whether or not consent may have been withdrawn, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, is not an issue. The only relevant question is whether the premises were open to the public at the time the defendant entered or remained with the intent to commit an offense therein.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 823 So. 2d 740 - State v. Byars, 786 So. 2d 1162 - Johnson v. State

“We do not find any merit to the State's argument in this case that the area behind the counter was not open to the public.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 786 So. 2d 1162 - Johnson v. State, 758 So. 2d 1271 - Millian v. State

Relies on 733 So. 2d 955 - Miller v. State · 685 So. 2d 17 - Garvin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-04-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

¶2Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial, Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review Laster v. State,23 Fla. L. Weekly D790, ___ So.2d ___, 1998 WL 129034(Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which the district court certified conflict with the opinion in Garvin v. State,685 So.2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), regarding whether the "open to the public" defense is a complete defense to the charge of burglary. See § 810.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

¶5This case is controlled by our recent decision in Miller v. State,24 Fla. L. Weekly 5155, 733 So.2d 955 (Fla.1998). In Miller, we held that if a defendant can establish that the premises were open to the public, then this is a complete defense to the charge of burglary. We do not find any merit to the State's argument in this case that the area behind the counter was not open to the public. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the First District Court of Appeal. We disapprove Garvin to the extent that it is inconsistent with our decision in Miller.

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

/735/so2d/481 · .json · Public domain