STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES LANCIA, 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 State appeals a trial court's grant of post-conviction relief awarding Lancia a new trial for a robbery with firearm conviction, based on an allegedly erroneous jury instruction on the insanity defense that failed to place the burden of proof of sanity on the state. The appellate court reverses, finding the error was not preserved at trial and does not constitute fundamental error.
The appellate court reversed the grant of new trial because: (1) the error was not preserved at trial through objection or request for a proper instruction, and such preservation is required; (2) matters that could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be considered in a post-conviction 3.850 motion; and (3) the jury instruction on insanity does not constitute fundamental error.
[1] An erroneous jury instruction on the burden of proof for an insanity defense is not preserved for appellate review unless an objection is made at trial or a proper instru…
[2] Matters that could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be considered in a motion for post-conviction relief.
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“This error must be preserved by objection at trial or by requesting a proper instruction in order for an appellate court to afford relief.”
Establishes the requirement that jury instruction errors must be preserved at trial to be reviewable 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 intelligenceLancia was convicted of robbery with a firearm and relied on insanity as a defense at trial, with conflicting expert testimony presented on the issue.…
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 Burden Of Proof Of Sanity cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order which granted Lancia a new trial pursuant to his motion for post-conviction relief,1 after he had been convicted and sentenced for robbery with a firearm. The basis for the new trial award was that the jury instruction given at trial in support of Lancia’s insanity defense failed to correctly instruct the jury that the state had the burden of proof of sanity.2 We reverse because the error was not preserved at trial, and because we do not think the erroneous jury instruction constitutes fundamental error. At trial, Lancia relied upon insanity as a defense, and conflicting expert witnesses testified on this issue. The defense counsel proposed the following jury instruction, which the trial judge refused:
In order for there to be a reasonable doubt about his sanity, it is not necessary to show that [Lancia] was generally incapacitated.
That instruction is silent concerning the burden of proof of sanity.
Further, at trial the court gave the standard Florida jury instructions on the insanity defense, which clearly apprised the jury that Lancia’s insanity at the time he committed the crime was a basis upon which to find him not guilty. Although this instruction failed to place the burden of proof of the defendant’s sanity on the state, as required by Yohn, nevertheless, defense counsel failed to object to the instructions at trial. This error must be preserved by objection at trial or by requesting a proper instruction in order for an appellate court to afford relief. Roman v. State, 475 So. 2d 1228 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1480, 89 L.Ed.2d 734 (1986). Not only did Lancia fail to preserve the error at trial, but also this ground was apparently not raised in his direct appeal to this court, which affirmed his conviction without a published opinion.3 Matters which could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be considered on a 3.850 motion. Middleton v. State 465 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
Further, we agree with our sister court that it is not fundamental error for a trial court to instruct a jury on the defense of insanity in accordance with the Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.04(b). Snook v. State, 478 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 487 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1986).4 Different jurisdictions handle this defense in different ways, and whether the state or the defendant has the ultimate burden of proof on this issue, does not in either case make the trial fundamentally unfair.5
Accordingly, we reverse the order for new trial and we reinstate Lancia’s conviction and sentence.
REVERSED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850
. See Yohn v. State, 476 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1985).
. Lancia v. State, 451 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
. See also United States v. Amos, 803 F. 2d 419 (8th Cir.Mo.1986).
. Snook v. State, 478 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 487 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1988)…anity of a fair trial. Despite any shortcomings, the standard jury instructions, as a whole, made it quite clear that the burden of proof was on the state to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted in State v. Lancia, 499 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the court rejected a claim for post-conviction relief where the old standard jury instruction on insanity had been given without objection: Different jurisdictions handle this defense in different ways, and whether the…
-
Zackery Holiday v. State, 753 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2000)…anity of a fair trial. Despite any shortcomings, the standard jury instructions, as a whole, made it quite clear that the burden of proof was on the state to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted in State v. Lancia, 499 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the court rejected a claim for post-conviction relief where the old standard jury instruction on insanity had been given without objection: Different jurisdictions handle this defense in different ways, and whether the…
-
Hill v. State, 511 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…, and find no reversible error. 475 So. 2d at 1234. Neither party in Lentz cited the Roman case and our earlier opinion in Lentz did not discuss the effect of that opinion. Therefore we now hold, as did the Fifth District Court in State v. Lancia, 499 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), that when the trial court errs by giving an insanity instruction which fails to put the burden of proof of the defendant’s sanity on the state, as required by Yohn, defense counsel must preserve the error by objection at trial o…
Authorities Cited
- Roman v. State, 475 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1985)
- Tura Yohn v. State, 476 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1985)
- Middleton v. State, 465 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Snook v. State, 478 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1986)