finding that the unit of prosecution was the single act of possession regardless of how many items were actually possessed
How later courts described this case
- finding that the unit of prosecution was the single act of possession regardless of how many items were actually possessed
- “The jury was most certainly able to separate the evidence of the four crimes because it convicted Culver only of the crimes involving possession of obscene matter.”
- "To be timely, a motion for a mistrial must be made immediately after the grounds alleged to warrant the mistrial become apparent."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BASCHAB, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “Culver committed only a single criminal act when he possessed both forms of obscene material.” 22 So.3d at 515. I cannot believe that the Legislature envisioned such a result. Even though they may have been produced during the same incident and depict the same incident, the obscene materials were in very different forms and involved very different modes of production. Also, they were stored in different locations. Therefore, the jury reasonably concluded that he was guilty of two separate counts of possession of obscene matter. Accordingly, I dissent as to Part II of the majority opinion and the *530 parts related thereto and concur as to the remainder of the opinion.