Smith v. State
Smith appealed his conviction for possession of an electric weapon or device by a convicted felon, arguing the State failed to prove the taser was operable. The Sixth District held that section 790.23(1)(a) and the statutory definition of 'electric weapon or device' contain no operability requirement, so the State only needed to show the device was designed or used for offensive/defensive purposes through electrical current. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Key facts
- Smith, a convicted felon, was charged with possession of an electric weapon or device in violation of section 790.23(1)(a).
- At trial, Smith argued the State failed to prove the taser was operable; the trial court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted him.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion resolves a recurring sufficiency argument in felon-possession-of-electric-weapon prosecutions by clarifying that the State need not prove the device's operability, only that it fits the statutory design/use… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.