JESSIE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that defense counsel's failure to distinctly object to the trial court's refusal to give a special jury instruction, stating the grounds for the objection, precluded appellate review of the issue.
The defendant was convicted of robbery. Defense counsel requested a special jury instruction, which the trial court refused over the state's objection…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*118] HURLEY, Judge.
This appeal results from the defendant/appellant’s conviction of robbery. He asserts several points on appeal, but we limit our discussion to the question of whether defense trial counsel made and preserved an objection to the trial court’s refusal to give a special requested jury instruction. We conclude that the requirements of Rule 3.390(d), Fla.R.Crim.P. were not met, and consequently the trial court’s ruling and the merits of the instruction itself may not be considered on appeal.
During the jury instruction conference defense counsel tendered a written special jury instruction. The state objected and the court sustained the objection. The matter was concluded without further discussion. At the end of its charge to the jury the court inquired whether there were “any objections by counsel to the instructions as given?” The state responded in the negative; defense counsel remained silent. Now on appeal, defendant/appellant wishes to test the propriety of the trial court’s ruling.
Rule 3.390(d) is quite explicit in its requirements:
No party may assign as error grounds of appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the presence of the jury.
While this court is concerned lest form be elevated over substance, there are important underlying considerations which mandate full compliance with the rule. Though defense counsel tendered a written instruction, his subsequent silence coupled with his failure to list the grounds for his objection preclude appellate review of this issue. White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. dism. 339 So. 2d 1193.
Finding the remaining points to be without merit, the judgment below is affirmed.
DOWNEY, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 395 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…trial court’s refusal to give a special requested jury instruction was precluded because-although counsel had submitted a written instruction, he failed to object and list the grounds for objection when that instruction was rejected. Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). To dispel the expressed concern that Smith elevates form over substance and requires an over-technical reading of the rule, we revisit that decision in the context of a clarification of the rule’s parameters. The civil counterp…
-
Williams v. State, 399 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…l charge conference in support of all requested, but denied, instructions. If there is, arguendo, some sound purpose to be served in insuring that a defendant who has requested an instruction has not later abandoned that request, see Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), that purpose is adequately [*1002] served by simple objection.6 See Easter v. State, 398 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Meeks v. State, 400 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (in which point said to be preserved by objection; no me…
-
Austin v. State, 406 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…form of an objection does not preclude appellate review. The underlying purpose of Rule 3.390(d) has been met; the trial court is placed on notice that refusal to give the requested instruction may be error. However, if, as in Smith [Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)], a jury instruction is tendered without further explanation, the subsequent failure to object on specific grounds to its denial is fatal and the issue has not been preserved for review. Rule 3.390(d) governs the preservation of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)