WILLIE MURRAY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for aggravated battery because the trial court violated the mandatory requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390 by refusing to instruct the jury on applicable penalties when the defendant requested such instruction. The Court held that harmless error analysis cannot override the mandatory nature of penalty instructions.
The trial court must, upon request of either the state or the defendant, give an instruction on the maximum and minimum sentences that may be imposed. The mandatory duty cannot be circumvented by application of the harmless error rule, as this would negate the mandatory provision in the rule.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390 mandates that a jury instruction on applicable penalties be given upon request by either the state or the defendant.
[2] A trial court's failure to provide a mandatory jury instruction on penalties cannot be deemed harmless error.
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“upon request of either the state or the defendant, it is mandatory that an instruction be given on the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed”
Establishes the mandatory nature of penalty instructions under Rule 3.390
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was charged with aggravated battery and pleaded not guilty. At the conclusion of trial, he requested that the court instruct the jury on the ap…
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.
ADKINS, Justice.
By petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Murray v. State, 378 So. 2d 111) (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), which allegedly conflicts with the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Tascano v. State, 363 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), on the same point of law.
The defendant, (petitioner here), was charged with aggravated battery and entered a plea of not guilty. At the conclusion of the evidence in a trial by jury the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury as to the appropriate penalties pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390. The request was denied and no instructions on penalties were given. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of aggravated battery as charged in the information.
Upon appeal, the district court of appeal held that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390 mandated an instruction on the applicable penalty up on request. The District Court of Appeal, First District, in Tascano v. State, supra, held that the trial judge could exercise his discretion in giving a penalty instruction even though a request was made. We quashed the decision in Tascano v. State, supra, and held that, upon request of either the state or the defendant, it is mandatory that an instruction be given on the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed. Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980).
The district court of appeal in the case sub judice held that Rule 3.390 had a mandatory meaning, but affirmed the conviction of the defendant on the basis of harmless error. If this mandatory duty could be circumvented on the basis of the harmless error rule, the effect of the mandatory provision in the rule would be negated.
We have jurisdiction and the only question before this Court has been decided in Tascano v. State, supra. Briefs on the merits would not be helpful.
The decision of the district court of appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reverse the judgment of conviction and to remand the same to trial court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ, concur. ALDERMAN, J, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)…the rule by applying the harmless error doctrine. We have consequently this day, by separate opinion, quashed the district court’s opinion in Murray on the basis of Taseano, concluding that the harmless error rule should not apply. Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981). We have also accepted jurisdiction in Knight and Allen under the 1972 constitutional provision and granted relief in accordance with our decisions in Taseano and Murray. Knight v. State, 401 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1981). Petitioner Jollie’s…
-
State v. Williams, 406 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. 400 So. 2d 471 (Fla.App.). Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1981). ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.…
-
Daniels v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Reversed and remanded pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980) and Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1981). By these decisions the Supreme Court has apparently ruled that no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be, failure to give a requested instruction on the penalties for the crimes charged constitutes reversible error. We make no rulin…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Murray v. State, 378 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Theodus B. McFARLIN v. State, 363 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)