JOE HENRY SKIPPER, 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.
Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision and held that a trial court's refusal of penalty instructions, when the defense counsel made a clear request and the court was aware of it, preserves the issue for appellate review without requiring strict compliance with Rule 3.390(d) objection procedures.
A trial court's refusal of penalty instructions preserves the issue for appellate review when defense counsel makes a clear request and the court is aware of and rules on that request, even without strict compliance with Rule 3.390(d) objection procedures.
[1] A trial court's refusal of jury instructions on penalties is preserved for appellate review when defense counsel makes a clear request and the court is aware of and rules…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“although the supplemental record establishes trial counsel's request for and denial of penalty instructions by the court, the record contains no objection in accordance with Rule 3.390(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure”
District court's reasoning for finding no reversible error
Joe Henry Skipper was convicted of armed robbery. At trial, defense counsel requested jury instructions on penalties, which the trial court denied.…
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 Jury Instructions On Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review a decision by the District Court of Appeal, First District (Skipper v. State, 400 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)), which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of this Court on the same question of law. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Petitioner, Joe Henry Skipper, was charged with and convicted of armed robbery. On appeal to the first district, petitioner, citing this Court’s decision in Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980), contended that the trial court had erred by failing to instruct the jury on penalties. The district court held that there existed no reversible error on that issue because “[although the supplemental record establishes trial counsel’s request for and denial of penalty instructions by the court, the record contains no objection in accordance with Rule 3.390(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.” 400 So. 2d at 797.
The district court’s opinion makes it clear that a request for instructions was made and that in refusing it, the trial court was fully aware of defense counsel’s request and was given an opportunity to rule thereon. In light of our recent opinions in Spurlock v. State, 420 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982), and Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1982), we hold that the issue was preserved for appellate review and direct that the district court remand this case for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowes v. State, 500 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ay have concluded that the homicides were inexcusable because they were committed with handguns. We reverse, finding Bowes properly preserved the error for our review by objection, cf. State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1983); Skipper v. State, 420 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). As a final note, we reject the state’s contention that excusable homicide is not a defense to a third-degree non-forcible felony murder. Section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (1985), denies a defendant the right to assert self-defense an…
-
Norwin Guzman v. State, 934 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…nd answers in their entirety, we conclude that Thies’ statements “reveal[] nothing more than an inclination toward law enforcement work and.upholding of the law.” See Skipper v. State, 400 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 420 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982); see also Peri v. State, 412 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing a cause challenge against a prospective juror who indicated that he would give police testimony a little more…
-
Rivers v. State, 425 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…he cases above cited, we are compelled to hold that the failure to give the “Williams’ Rule” instruction during the course of the trial, at least as of the point where it was specifically requested, was reversible error. See, also, Skipper v. State, 420 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). In so holding we note that the trial judge did not have the benefit of the more recent decisions to which we have referred. We have not overlooked the fact that the cases relied upon here dealt primarily with Tascano violations. Tascano…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1982)
- Spurlock v. State, 420 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1982)
- Skipper v. State, 400 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)