From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 13, 1996
684 So. 2d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

CASE NO. 96-1245

Opinion filed December 13, 1996

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, O. H. Eaton, Jr., Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Steven J. Guardiano, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Keisha Marin raises two issues on appeal: first, whether she can be convicted of two separate offenses of intent to defraud another by having "possession, custody, or control" of two credit cards stolen from the same individual when under the allegations and proof such custody occurred "during the same time and space," and second, whether it was error for the court to permit the State to impeach with the deposition (which was not videotaped)of a person under sixteen. We affirm on both issues.

In State v. Watts, 462 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1985), the supreme court explained its "a/any" rule as follows: "We reasoned that Grappin may be charged in a five-count information with five thefts because the article `a' prefaced firearm. We noted that the use of the article `a' in reference to "firearm" in section 812.014(2)(b)3 clearly shows that the legislature intended to make each firearm a separate unit of prosecution." Watts , 462 So.2d at 814.

The statute under which Marin was charged makes it a crime for one who intends to defraud another to have "a counterfeit credit card . . . in his possession, custody, or control. . ." A "counterfeit credit card" is defined to include a stolen credit card. Therefore, under the Watt's "a/any" rule, the legislature intended to make the possession of each stolen credit card a separate unit of prosecution.

On the issue relating to the deposition of the fifteen year old witness which was not videotaped, we find that any error was harmless. The deposition was audio recorded and clearly demonstrated that the witness, whose mother was present throughout the deposition, was not intimidated or mistreated in any fashion. It simply did not affect the result of this case in any way.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 13, 1996
684 So. 2d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Marin v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEISHA MARIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 13, 1996

Citations

684 So. 2d 859 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

State v. Rubio

Included within this common sense approach is the "a/any test." Bautista; Wallace; Marin v. State, 684 So.2d…

McKnight v. State

Included within the ambit of this common-sense approach is the "a/any test," which is a "valuable but…