R.V. v. State

497 So. 2d 912, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2348, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10545
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 12, 1986·No. Nos. 85-904, 85-2029·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

We 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 [913]*913C.J.R. v. State, 429 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 351 (Fla.1983).

Affirmed.

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

R.V. v. State, 497 So. 2d 912, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2348, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10545 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

497 So. 2d 912 (R.V. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maloney v. Singas
106 F. Supp. 3d 300 (E.D. New York, 2015)
R.R. v. State
826 So. 2d 465 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
C.A.W. v. State
817 So. 2d 1077 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
T.Y. v. State
697 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Thompson v. State
552 So. 2d 264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Robinson v. State
547 So. 2d 321 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
RV v. State
497 So. 2d 912 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)