State of Florida v. Andrew Benjamin
187 So. 3d 352
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Benjamin moved to dismiss his charge of carrying a concealed firearm under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4); the trial court granted, the State appealed.
- Facts: vehicle stopped for speeding; First Officer saw an empty holster in the driver’s lap; driver admitted a gun was in the trunk; Benjamin (passenger) was near the front when gun under the passenger seat was later seen in open view and retrieved.
- Second Officer testified he did not see a gun visible in the vehicle; First Officer saw the handgun only when Benjamin was outside the vehicle.
- The court deemed the facts undisputed by Benjamin and struck a ruling on whether they established a prima facie case; state-trial evidence was offered at the hearing to traverse the motion.
- The issue turned on whether the firearm was concealed under the statute; Ensor and Dorelus guide the analysis of concealment, focusing on the manner and visibility of the weapon.
- This court reversed and remanded, holding that conflicting inferences about concealment created a jury question rather than a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted dismissal under 3.190(c)(4) where inferences conflict | State—noting undisputed facts—argues prima facie case could be found against Benjamin. | Benjamin contends undisputed facts negate a prima facie case as a matter of law. | Dismissal reversed; issue is for the jury when inferences conflict. |
| Whether the firearm was concealed as a matter of law given the vehicle context and partial visibility | An inferable concealment exists from the location and exposure of a half-inch tip under the seat. | The weapon’s visibility under Ensor suggests non-concealment. | Concealment question is for the jury; not resolved as a matter of law. |
| Application of Ensor and Dorelus factors to determine concealment in this case | Factors could support concealment under the circumstances described. | Facts may support non-concealment under ordinary sight rules. | Remand for jury to resolve which inferences apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981) (concealed firearm analysis; two-fold test of location and ordinary sight)
- Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1999) (clarified focus on firearm’s location and visibility within vehicle)
- State v. Yarn, 63 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (prima facie case standard under 3.190(c)(4))
- State v. Hinkle, 970 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (de novo standard for rule 3.190(c)(4) review)
- Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (construction of prima facie case and most favorable inference rule)