Quiroga v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Quiroga v. State

364 So. 2d 47

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 1978

DocketNo. 77-2657

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 47 (Quiroga v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quiroga v. State, 364 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse.

The sole ground for reversal in this case is that the record, at the conclusion of all the testimony, is wholly devoid of any evidence upon which the jury could have determined that the firearm was concealed. The only direct testimony in regard to the concealment of the firearm is that of appellant. There is no evidence to show any inconsistency with his testimony that the firearm was not concealed. Proof of concealment is an essential element of the crime of carrying a concealed firearm and such element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the evidence before the jury was not susceptible of such proof. Donald v. State, 344 So.2d 633 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that appellant be discharged.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse.

The sole ground for reversal in this case is that the record, at the conclusion of all the testimony, is wholly devoid of any evidence upon which the jury could have determined that the firearm was concealed. The only direct testimony in regard to the concealment of the firearm is that of appellant. There is no evidence to show any inconsistency with his testimony that the firearm was not concealed. Proof of concealment is an essential element of the crime of carrying a concealed firearm and such element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the evidence before the jury was not susceptible of such proof. Donald v. State, 344 So.2d 633 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that appellant be discharged.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 So. 2d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiroga-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack