RICHARD ALLEN JACKSON, 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.
Jackson was convicted of false imprisonment and robbery. The court affirmed the false imprisonment conviction but reversed the robbery conviction, finding fundamental error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that intent to deprive is an element of robbery, where Jackson's defense was lack of criminal intent due to fear of a codefendant.
The robbery conviction must be reversed for a new trial. When intent is a material issue in the case based on the defendant's defense, failure to instruct the jury on intent to deprive as an element of robbery constitutes fundamental error, even if not objected to. The false imprisonment conviction is affirmed.
[1] A conviction for robbery must be reversed when the trial court fails to instruct the jury that intent to deprive is an element of the crime, if intent was a material issu…
[2] Failure to instruct the jury on intent as an element of robbery constitutes fundamental error when the defendant's primary defense is lack of criminal intent due to fear…
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 trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury that intent to deprive is, as held in Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981), indeed an element of the crime of robbery”
Establishes the core holding that failure to instruct on intent to deprive constitutes fundamental error in robbery cases when intent is a material issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was found guilty of false imprisonment and robbery. His primary defense to the robbery charge, supported by substantial evidence, was that he …
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 Fundamental Error In Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Jackson was found guilty of false imprisonment and robbery. While we reject his only point which goes to both convictions, Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1980); Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974), and therefore affirm as to false imprisonment, the robbery conviction must be reversed for a new trial.
The defendant’s primary defense to the robbery charge, supported by substantial evidence to that effect, was that he had no criminal intent to commit the offense, and acted through fear of a coperpetrator who was the dominant figure in the incident. Since the intent question was thus a real issue at the trial, and even though the omission was not objected to, the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury that intent to deprive is, as held in Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981), indeed an element of the crime of robbery. Graham v. State, 406 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (failure to instruct on intent fundamental error when issue material because of claim of voluntary intoxication); compare Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (no fundamental error when intent not in question); McMurtroy v. State, 400 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same, following Williams); Gibson v. State, 403 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same, following Williams); Lee v. State, 407 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (per curiam) (same, following Williams). State v. Carter, 4 Wash.App. 103, 480 P. 2d 794 (1971) is squarely on point. In citing and approving that decision in Williams at 400 So. 2d 546, we described it as a case
in which four codefendants were convicted of robbery of a liquor store in a trial where the judge failed to advise the jury that proof of intent is an element of the crime. Three of the defendants won reversals of their convictions on appeal, since the gist of each of their defenses was that the holdup was an unplanned, spontaneous occurrence; each alleged in effect that they merely responded to the commands of one another. The court found that the element of intent was material to those defendants, and that the omission was therefore a ‘fatal defect.’
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. We went on to note that
the fourth codefendant’s conviction was affirmed, since
there was no evidence presented in [his] case which placed the element of intent in issue. There has been no showing that [he] was prejudiced by the failure to properly define the necessary element of intent. . . 480 P. 2d at 800.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldie Topper v. Stewart, 449 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…CURIAM. Goldie Topper, as personal representative of Sarah Liptzen’s estate, appeals from a judgment in favor of Sam Liptzen’s estate following appellate remand for further proceedings on appellant’s complaint for an accounting. Topper v. Stewart, 412 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982) (Topper II). For reasons more fully detailed below, we remand once again for further proceedings. On June 26, 1963, Sam and Sarah, both of whom had been married previously and had grown childre…
-
Henderson v. State, 429 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…DCA 1981); Gibson v. State, 403 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McMurtroy v. State, 400 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), with Holmes v. State, 412 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jackson v. State, 412 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Gains v. State, 417 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (even though failure to instruct on intent element in robbery case preserved by proper objection, error harmless where no genuine issue on intent). The instructions give…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1981)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)
- Graham v. State, 406 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Gibson v. State, 403 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McMURTROY v. State, 400 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Anders v. State, 407 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bailey v. State, 407 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)