ANGEL AGET, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider accomplice testimony with great caution when the accomplice testified for the defense.
Angel Aget was convicted of selling diazepam. The trial court instructed the jury to consider the testimony of an accomplice with great caution, over …
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 Accomplice Testimony Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Angel Aget, appealing his conviction for the sale of diazepan, cites as prejudicial error the trial court’s instruction charging the jury, over defense objection, to consider the testimony of an accomplice with great caution. Finding merit in appellant’s assertion, we reverse.
In Dudley v. State, 405 So. 2d 304, 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the court stated the general rule regarding the use of the accomplice testimony instruction:
This instruction is intended to be used when the state presents the testimony of an accomplice whose motivation for testifying against his alleged colleague and cooperating with the state may be substantially influenced by his own self-interest. The instruction was not intended to be used against a defendant who may present a co-defendant or other person involved in the incident in question as a witness for the defense.
In the present ease, the alleged accomplice testified on behalf of defendant Aget. Thus, the accomplice instruction cast doubt upon the exculpatory testimony given by a key defense witness, Taylor v. State, 403 So. 2d 585 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); Wheelis v. State, 340 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and mandates reversal.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montez Robinson v. State, 589 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…tantially influenced by his own self-interest. The instruction was not intended to be used against a defendant who may present a co-defendant or other person involved in the incident in question as a witness for the defense. See also Aget v. State, 448 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In the instant case, White testified on behalf of the defendant. The accomplice instruction was essentially a directive to the jury to disregard the defense’s only witness. The “instruction cast doubt upon the exculpatory testim…
-
Lester v. State, 813 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…used against a defendant who may present a co-defendant or other person involved in the incident in question as a witness for the defense. Dudley, 405 So. 2d at 305-06; see also, Robinson v. State, 589 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Aget v. State, 448 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In the instant case, Mrs. Lester, the alleged accomplice testified on behalf of the defendant and accepted all responsibility for the crimes. Therefore, the giving of this instruction was error. However, in all of the above-cit…
Authorities Cited
- Dudley v. State, 405 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Wheelis v. State, 340 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Taylor v. State, 403 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)