RICKY LEE PRATT, 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.
Ricky Lee Pratt was convicted by jury of introducing contraband (cannabis) into a correctional institution. On appeal, Pratt challenged the jury instructions for omitting an element regarding knowledge of possession, but the appellate court held the omission constituted harmless error and affirmed the conviction.
The omission of the knowledge element from the jury instructions does not constitute fundamental error under these circumstances because the failure to instruct on essential elements must be measured by whether serious prejudice resulted, and the court found the omission was harmless as the evidence made knowledge essentially undisputed and a complete instruction would not have resulted in a different verdict.
[1] The omission of a jury instruction on knowledge of possession of contraband in a correctional institution does not constitute fundamental error if the evidence of knowled…
[2] An asserted error must amount to a denial of an essentially fair trial to be considered fundamental error that can be raised for the first time on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“For an error to be so fundamental that it may be first raised on appeal, the asserted error must amount to a denial of an essentially fair trial.”
Establishes the standard for fundamental error that can be raised for the first time on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Pratt was tried for introducing contraband (cannabis) into Baker Correctional Institution in violation of Florida Statutes Section 944.47(1)…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
A jury found appellant guilty of the offense of introducing into or upon the grounds of a correctional institution contraband, in violation of Section 944.47(l)(a)4, Florida Statutes. The instructions given to the jury, to which appellant admittedly did not object, were as follows:
Now, the essential elements of this offense which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction in this case is that Ricky Lee Pratt, the defendant, did introduce into or upon the grounds of a correctional institution, contraband; that the contraband was cannabis; and that Baker Correctional Institution is a correctional or penal institution operated by the Department of Corrections.
This appeal from the resulting adjudication and sentence raises primarily the question of whether the omission from the jury charge of an instruction as to knowledge of possession, held in Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) to be an essential element of this type of crime, constitutes fundamental error. We hold that under the circumstances of this case it does not.
For an error to be so fundamental that it may be first raised on appeal, the asserted error must amount to a denial of an essentially fair trial. Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). On the face of the matter, we cannot see that appellant’s right to due process was compromised in any way by the failure to tell the jury that the state must prove something which in fact had essentially gone undisputed. As recognized by our sister court in Williams, the failure to instruct the jury specifically as to essential elements of the crime are to be measured by the standard of the presence or absence of serious prejudice. The main concern under these circumstances, when faced with a question of possible fundamental error, is whether a complete instruction would have resulted in a different verdict. Id., at 546-547.
We cannot say, after a careful study of the trial transcript, that a complete instruction on knowledge would have resulted in a different verdict. We are satisfied in light of the evidence presented to the jury, that the omission here was harmless.
Since appellant’s second point is also without merit, see e.g., Topley v. State, 416 So. 2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the judgment under review is, for these reasons,
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. State, 459 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…under the law. The imagined consequences of a reversal simply do not play a part in our decision-making process. Affirmed. . The rule has not been applied solely to the omission of the intent element in a robbery [*324] charge. See Pratt v. State, 429 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (omission of knowledge element in drug case). Indeed, one appellate court has extended the rule in holding that the failure to instruct on an essential element over the objection of the defendant is harmless error where the exist…
-
State v. Brady Austin, Jr., 532 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ntifi-cation defense. The trial court failed to instruct the jury on any of the elements of the crime itself. The district court held that failure to instruct as to an element of crime which is undisputed is not fundamental error. In Pratt v. State, 429 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the failure to instruct on a knowledge of possession element determined to be essential did not constitute fundamental error when the missing element had not been in dispute and a complete instruction would not have resulted in…
-
Dominguez v. State, 492 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…instruction). Here the only real issue was Dominguez’ knowledge of the substance possessed. The absence of the instruction on the state’s burden of proof on this issue was therefore clearly prejudicial. The cases cited by the state, Pratt v. State, 429 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), are distinguishable. In Pratt, the court held that the failure of the judge to instruct the jury that knowledge of possession was an essential element of the crime of intr…
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
- Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Topley v. State, 416 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)