LEWIS HENRY KANOUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIETTA L. RUSSELL, ET AL., APPELLEE
LEWIS HENRY KANOUSE, APPELLANT,
MARIETTA L. RUSSELL, ET AL., APPELLEE
312 So. 2d 494
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1975)
Caution
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed upon the authority of Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So. 2d 777 (Fla.App. 1974); Maybarduk v. Bustamante, 294 So. 2d 374 (Fla.App.1974); and Stuart v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1974, 302 So. 2d 187.
WALDEN, CROSS, and MAGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hipolito Marrero v. State, 516 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ribes the defense to the possession charge, but it may carry some baggage associated with the duress defense. We prefer and will use the still more general term "justification." . Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Carter v. State, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Before Mungin, the Fourth District, in Nickerson v. State, 417 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Coleman v. State, 345 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), held that self-defense is not a viable defense to the possession of a fire…
-
Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ch the merits w^ would nevertheless be required under the evidence revealed by the record to affirm. Self defense is not a viable defense to the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted [*179] felon. (See Carter v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 312 So. 2d 494; Johnson v. State, 1971, 256 Ind. 497, 269 N.E. 2d 879) Further, the evidence reveals that the defendant had been in possession of the loaded shotgun for an extended period of time prior to the incident giving rise to the charges against him. Affir…
-
Mungin v. State, 458 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…984, which recognized that the defense of self-defense, or necessity and duress, was, under the unique circumstances presented by this case, permissible. The state urges that this court’s opinion conflicts with its prior opinions in Carter v. State, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and therefore rehearing en banc should be granted pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331. The full court has considered the motion for rehe…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Frank M. Stuart, M.D., P.A. v. The HERTZ Corp., 302 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Maybarduk v. Bustamante, 294 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)