State v. NixonState v. Nixon
The information alleged “that Edward Robinson Nixon on the 28th day of July 1973, in the County and State aforesaid [Dade County, Florida], did unlawfully and feloneously, without intent to kill, make an assault in and upon one David White, with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife, in violation of
The information tracked the statute. The essentials of the offense were alleged in the statutory language. It was sufficient. See Smith v. State, 1916, 72 Fla. 449, 73 So. 354; McGuire v. State, 1932, 106 Fla. 934, 143 So. 766; State v. Bruno, Fla. 1958, 107 So.2d 9.
The order granting the defendant‘s motion to dismiss the information did not state grounds upon which it was based. The appellee contends the information was insufficient because the “deadly weapon” therein referred to was a knife, and points to the fact that in
But that does not mean that a pocket knife cannot be a deadly weapon. Whether an object used as a weapon in an assault is a deadly weapon is a factual question to be resolved by the finder of facts at trial (Bass v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 232 So.2d 25), and is to be determined upon consideration of its likelihood to produce death or great bodily injury. Dey v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 266; Forchion v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 751. It is common knowledge that in certain circles pocket knives are used by assailants with deadly weapon effect as frequently, if not more frequently than are firearms.
Secondly, the appellee contends the information was insufficient and subject to dismissal for failure to allege the time of day, and the place or address within the county at which the alleged offense took place. That contention is without merit.
For the reasons stated the order dismissing the information is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.