ERIC NEMIAH INGRAM, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Eric Ingram was convicted of two counts of obtaining property through worthless checks in excess of $50. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on a material element of the crime and by misreading the charges to omit that element.
The court held that the trial court committed fundamental error in both omitting the jury instruction and misreading the charges, as these errors deprived the jury of knowledge of a material element that distinguished the felony charges from misdemeanor charges and affected the court's jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on a material element of the charged offense.
[2] A jury instruction that omits a material element of a crime misleads the jury regarding the charges and can affect the court's jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the jury here was completely misled as to what the defendant was charged with and had no knowledge whatever as to a material element of the crime which made these offenses felonies as opposed to misdemeanors”
Establishes that the jury's lack of knowledge about a material element constituted fundamental error affecting the court's jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIngram was charged and convicted by jury verdict of two counts of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in excess of $50 under Florida st…
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 Jurisdiction Of Circuit Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Eric N. Ingram appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence based on two counts of obtaining property in re turn for a worthless check in excess of $50, [§ 832.05(4), Fla.Stat. (1979)] entered against him upon a jury verdict after trial in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The defendant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in: (a) failing to give any instruction whatever to the jury relating to a material element of the crimes for which he was charged and convicted, namely, the obtaining through a worthless check of “any services, goods, wares, or other things of value.” [§ 832.05(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979)]; and (b) misreading the pertinent counts of the subject information to the jury so as to omit the above material element as it was alleged therein. We entirely agree.
It seems clear beyond dispute that the jury here was completely misled as to what the defendant was charged with and had no knowledge whatever as to a material element of the crime which made these offenses felonies as opposed to misdemeanors [compare § 832.05(2), Fla.Stat. (1979)], a matter which went directly to the circuit court’s jurisdiction to try this case. See § 26.012(2)(d), 34.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). It is, therefore, our view that the compounded error under consideration goes to the very foundation of this ease and is fundamental in nature. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970). The judgment of conviction and sentence under review must be and is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. See e. g. State v. Jones, 377 So. 2d 1163 (Fla.1979); Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 (1935); Williams v. State, 366 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 375 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1979).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…prive element from cattle stealing instruction; “the defense ... was . .. that [the defendant] had no intention of stealing the cattle, but that his actions were the result of instructions received from the agent of the owner.. .”); Ingram v. State, 393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (omission of disputed and basic element of receipt of value for check from instructions on felony charge of obtaining property through worthless check). On the other hand, when it does not appear that the subject of the defective…1 / 2
-
Delmetric Dowling v. State, 723 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…from the charge. Fundamental error occurs when the trial court fails to properly instruct the jury as to a material element of the crime charged and thereby misleads the jury as to what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Ingram v. State, 393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Moody v. State, 359 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). No such error occurred here, despite the court’s deviation from the standard jury instruction. Our supreme court has often emphasized that their approval of standard jury instr…
-
State v. Williams, 421 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…note that even if the supreme court were subsequently to depart from the holding in Re-dondo, a new trial would be required on the possession charge because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the elements of that crime. Ingram v. State, 393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 366 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 375 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)
- Elbert Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Wiley Jones, Jr., 377 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1979)
- Williams v. State, 366 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)