JAMES CUMMINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Cummings appeals his conviction for attempted possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession and rejecting claims that the trial court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal and in refusing a requested jury instruction.
The conviction is affirmed. The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish constructive possession of the shotgun and, a fortiori, sufficient to support conviction on the lesser included offense of attempted possession. The trial court properly denied the motion for acquittal and correctly refused the requested jury instruction because it was misleading.
[1] A judge shall not instruct the jury on any degree of an offense if there is no evidence to support that degree.
[2] A judge shall not instruct the jury on an attempt to commit an offense if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant was found by police at 1:00 A.M., lying on the ground attempting to hide behind a nearby coral rock wall with a short-barreled, fully loaded shotgun also lying on the ground six inches from the defendant within his easy grasp; this evidence clearly establishes that the defendant was in constructive possession of the shotgun.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding constructive possession of the weapon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice found Cummings at 1:00 A.M. lying on the ground attempting to hide behind a coral rock wall with a fully loaded, short-barreled shotgun lying s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of A Short-Barreled Shotgun cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant James Cummings from a judgment of conviction and sentence for attempted possession of a short-barreled shotgun [§§ 777.04(1), 790.-221, Fla.Stat. (1991)]. We affirm.
The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant was found by police at 1:00 A.M., lying on the ground attempting to hide behind a nearby coral rock wall with a short-barreled, fully loaded shotgun also lying on the ground six inches from the defendant within his easy grasp; this evidence clearly establishes that the defendant was in constructive possession of the shotgun. The defendant was charged by the information with possession of a short-barreled shotgun, but made no objection to a jury charge on the alleged lesser offense of attempted possession of a short-barreled shotgun, but cf. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.510 (“The judge shall not instruct the jury [on an attempt to commit the charged offense] if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed of-fense_”); the jury convicted the defendant on the alleged lesser offense. Because the state’s evidence was clearly sufficient to convict the defendant on the charge of possession of a short-barreled shotgun, a fortio-ri, it also was sufficient, given the defendant’s waiver of any objection to the attempt instruction, to convict the defendant on attempted possession of a short-barreled shotgun.
Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s central point on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal at trial. Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976); Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
We further reject the defendant’s point on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his proposed requested jury instruction. The proposed instruction stated in part that knowledge of the presence of the short-barreled shotgun “may not be inferred by the defendant’s close proximity to the firearm”; this statement of law is misleading because, in some circumstances, a defendant’s proximity to a shotgun may very well prove that the defendant knew that the gun in question was a short-barreled shotgun, as where the gun appears directly in front of the defendant within his/her direct sight and ready access. A trial court does not commit reversible error when, as here, it denies a requested jury instruction which is misleading either in whole or in part. See Alonso v. State, 447 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), dismissed, 328 So. 2d 841 (Fla.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998, 97 S.Ct. 524, 50 L.Ed.2d 608 (1976).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Ne. Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 429 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1976)
- Gaddy v. Michael, 429 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1976)
- Clevent D. Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Alonso v. State, 447 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)