State v. Ware

253 So. 2d 145, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5835
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 6, 1971
DocketNo. 70-903
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 So. 2d 145 (State v. Ware) 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
State v. Ware, 253 So. 2d 145, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On October 1, 1970, an information was filed against appellee charging him with a violation of F.S. § 790.001(2), F.S.A. by carrying a concealed firearm, a 20 gauge shotgun, on his person. Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that as per F.S. § 790.001(6) ,1 F.S.A. this particular firearm could not readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The defendant had the shotgun broken down into two separate pieces. He had the barrel of the gun under his left arm inside his shirt, and it extended down into his pants. The defendant then had the stock of the gun inside the front of his shirt. The shells for the gun were in the defendant’s right pants pocket. The trial court granted defendant’s motion after a hearing thereon. The state now appeals the order. We reverse.

During the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gun itself was marked as an exhibit and introduced into evidence. The arresting officer testified that the defendant could have removed the gun from beneath his clothing, assembled the gun for use, and loaded it in under 30 seconds.

[146]*146Indeed, some could reach a different conclusion than that reached by the trial judge and hold that as a matter of law this firearm could quickly be assembled thereby giving the defendant ample opportunity to wield the gun in a manner which could easily inflict death or grievous bodily injury on its victim. Clearly the evidence presented creates a factual issue which should and can only be determined by a jury.

Therefore, the order is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bates v. State
883 So. 2d 907 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
People v. Hale
43 Cal. App. 3d 353 (California Court of Appeal, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 So. 2d 145, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ware-fladistctapp-1971.