Martin v. State

Dec 30, 1999
No. 99-1345
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Griffin
GRIFFIN, J.

The sole issue in this case is whether the knife used by appellant to assault and injure his victim by ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍slashing his eye could not, as a matter of law, qualify as a deadly weapon in a prosecution for aggravated battery. The defendant characterizes the knife as a “pocketknife.” The defendant asserts a pocketknife can never be a deadly weapon; the ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍State says anything can be a deadly weapon if used in a way likely to produce great bodily harm. The defendant relies on L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370 (Fla.1997). L.B. involved a weapon possession charge, however. There, the court found that the term “common pocketknife” found in ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes (1995) was not unconstitutionally vague and included the knife at issue in that case. Here, we have a pocketknife (of some sort)1 used as a weapon to injure. A pocketknife can qualify as a deadly weapon. The case ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍is not controlled by L.B. See Durden v. State, 743 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Mims v. State, 662 So.2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review denied, 673 So.2d 29 (Fla.1996); Arroyo v. State, 564 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Notes

. Also, it is not adequately established ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍in the record that the knife used by appellant was a ‘‘common pocketknife.” See Walls v. State, 730 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).