Mitchell v. State
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ricardo Vega v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2021)
- Brown v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- M. D. M. v. STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)
- MARK AGENOR v. STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- C.W. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
- Swanson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- Goodwin v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
- Flesner v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- King v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Wadman v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- Rios v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- June v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We have for review Mitchell v. State, 698 So.2d 555, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), wherein the district court certified:
If the State fails to prove that a BB pistol is loaded and operable at the time of an offense, can it be classified as a dangerous or deadly weapon when the defendant’s actions cause the victim to reasonably believe that the BB pistol is loaded and operable?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently addressed this issue in Dale v. State, 703 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1997), wherein we held that whether a BB gun— loaded or unloaded — is a deadly weapon is a jury question. We approve Mitchell.
It is so ordered.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
“I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Dale v. State, 703 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1997).”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.