MARK STEPHEN PERDUE, 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.
Appellant Perdue challenged his burglary conviction, arguing the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the Florida Supreme Court had eliminated the circumstantial evidence instruction as unnecessary when proper reasonable doubt instructions are given.
The trial court did not err in denying the circumstantial evidence instruction. Following the Florida Supreme Court's 1981 decision eliminating the standard circumstantial evidence instruction, such an instruction is unnecessary when proper instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof are given, though trial judges retain discretion to provide it if warranted by case-specific facts.
[1] A jury instruction on circumstantial evidence is unnecessary when the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt and burden of proof.
[2] The Supreme Court of Florida has eliminated the standard jury instruction on circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.
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“We find that the circumstantial evidence instruction is unnecessary. The special treatment afforded circumstantial evidence has previously been eliminated in our civil standard jury instructions and in the federal courts.”
Establishes the Florida Supreme Court's rationale for eliminating the circumstantial evidence instruction from standard jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerdue was convicted of burglary. At trial, he requested a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence, 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 Appeal From Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence for burglary contending that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence. We affirm.
On April 16, 1981, the Supreme Court issued an opinion, In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases and the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, No. 57,734 (Fla. April 16, 1981), which eliminated the instruction on circumstantial evidence. We publish the pertinent portions of this opinion:
Criminal Instructions Generally
We have considered all comments and have determined the revised instructions submitted by the committee should be adopted as finally proposed, with some minor modifications.
We recognize that there was a dispute within the committee concerning the instruction on reasonable doubt; we approve the instruction as proposed.
We note that the Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar approved the instructions as proposed except for the elimination of the instruction on circumstantial evidence. We find that the circumstantial evidence instruction is unnecessary. The special treatment afforded circumstantial evidence has previously been eliminated in our civil standard jury instructions and in the federal courts. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 [75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150] (1954). The Criminal Law Section’s criticism of this deletion rests upon the assumption that an instruction on reasonable doubt is inadequate and that an accompanying instruction on circumstantial evidence is necessary. The United States Supreme Court has not only rejected this view but has gone even further, stating:
“[T]he better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect .... ”
Id. at 139-40 [75 S.Ct. at 139-140] (1954). The elimination of the current standard instruction on circumstantial evidence does not totally prohibit such an instruction if a trial judge, in his or her discretion, feels that such is necessary under the peculiar facts of a specific case. However, the giving of the proposed instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof, in our opinion, renders an instruction on circumstantial evidence unnecessary.
Based on the above opinion, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of an instruction on circumstantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fridovich v. State, 489 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…evidence tends to show that a crime was committed. Bassett, 449 So. 2d at 807. We think it was sufficient here. [*147] We also reject contentions that the trial court erred in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence instruction, Perdue v. State, 421 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial, or that the manslaughter verdict was invalid as being inconsistent with the proof offered at trial, see Silvestri, 332 So. 2d at 353. Accordingly, we reverse and remand th…
-
Wadman v. State, 750 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ave upheld trial courts’ refusals to give a requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Branch v. State, 685 So. 2d 1250, 1252-53 (Fla.1996); Rembert, 445 So. 2d at 339; Williams v. State, 437 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1983); Perdue v. State, 421 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The problem with the instruction in this case is that it diminishes the state’s burden of proof with respect to one element of the crime charged. After explaining that the state may establish the defendant’s use of a firearm “e…
-
Salter v. State, 77 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…. This court has held that the instruction on circumstantial evidence was eliminated and that a trial court may, in its discretion, opt to give a circumstantial evidence special instruction if the court feels [*764] it is necessary. Perdue v. State, 421 So. 2d 816, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Here, the trial court read the standard instructions and Salter did not show how failure to specially instruct the jury as to circumstantial evidence would be an abuse of discretion. Salter argued that the “peculiar facts”…
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
- Holland et ux. v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1954)