Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pagan v. Stategreen1 sentence2024STANDARDS OF REVIEW Denial of the Motions for Judgment of Acquittal “The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
MacHado v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Although defendant's pistol was not operable until the missing parts were added, operability is not a determinative factor in defining a firearm.”); Machado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132, 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (rejecting argument that State failed to prove the pistol introduced into evidence was actually a firearm under section 790.001(6): “[O]perability is not a determinative factor in defining a firearm. 2024Although defendant's pistol was not operable until the missing parts were added, operability is not a determinative factor in defining a firearm.”); Machado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132, 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (rejecting argument that State failed to prove the pistol introduced into evidence was actually a firearm under section 790.001(6): “[O]perability is not a determinative factor in defining a firearm. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Altmangreen1 sentence2024It was well within his realm of experience to offer the trier of fact his opinion as to this origin of the mark on the ‘stash house’ window sill.”) See also State v. Altman, 432 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“When we return to the definition of a firearm under Section 790.001(6), it is clear that the legislature intended to denounce separately the carrying of ‘any weapon which . . . may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive’ or ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon.’ Defendant's hammer, handle, and barrel assembly, a pistol without a cylinder and wi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Strachangreen1 sentence1998See State v. Strachan, 549 So.2d 235, 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Lane v. State, 567 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See State v. Strachan, 549 So.2d 235, 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Lane v. State, 567 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quinngreen2 sentences1998However, the Quinn court specifically found that there was no issue of fact concerning the gun’s concealment because “[t]he state acknowledged that the arresting officer immediately recognized the object as a firearm from his position outside the defendant’s car.” Id. at 474 (emphasis added). 1998Appellee primarily relies on State v. Quinn, 518 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), in which this court affirmed the dismissal of an information where a gun sticking out from under the sheet being used as a seat cover in defendant’s vehicle was not a concealed firearm within the meaning of section 790.001(2). | 1 | 1 |
MM v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (starter pistol that had a warped barrel with two bars in it could not fire a projectile, and because it could only be converted by an expert, it could not be considered a firearm), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Ridley v. State, 441 So.2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (even if a drill had been present at the crime scene to unplug the starter pistol’s barrel, the gun did not qualify as a firearm, because it could not readily be converted to expel a projectile); Harpham v. State, 435 So.2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (proofs were insufficient | 1 | 1 |
Ensor v. Stategreen1 sentence1983A firearm is concealed if it is 1) carried on or about a person and 2) hidden from the ordinary sight of another person. § 790.001(2), Fla. Stat. (1981); Ensor v. *519 State, 403 So.2d 349, 354 (Fla. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See, e.g., Chapman v. State, 389 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bentley v. State
green
2 sentences1993In Bentley v. State, 501 So.2d 600 (Fla.1987) the Florida Supreme Court relied upon this definition of firearm in section 790.001(6) in holding that the three year minimum mandatory sentence of section 775.087(2) could be imposed even though the handgun was unloaded. 1992In Bentley v. State, 501 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1987), the defendant challenged her conviction and mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm. | 2 | 1992–1993 |
Martin v. State
green
2 sentences1979Martin v. State, 367 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). 1979Martin v. State, 367 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Harpham v. State
green
1 sentence1991See M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (starter pistol that had a warped barrel with two bars in it could not fire a projectile, and because it could only be converted by an expert, it could not be considered a firearm), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Ridley v. State, 441 So.2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (even if a drill had been present at the crime scene to unplug the starter pistol’s barrel, the gun did not qualify as a firearm, because it could not readily be converted to expel a projectile); Harpham v. State, 435 So.2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (proofs were insufficient | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ridley v. State
green
1 sentence1991See M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (starter pistol that had a warped barrel with two bars in it could not fire a projectile, and because it could only be converted by an expert, it could not be considered a firearm), review denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Ridley v. State, 441 So.2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (even if a drill had been present at the crime scene to unplug the starter pistol’s barrel, the gun did not qualify as a firearm, because it could not readily be converted to expel a projectile); Harpham v. State, 435 So.2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (proofs were insufficient | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.