THOMAS EDWARD HALL, 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.
Thomas Edward Hall appealed his conviction for multiple felonies, including first-degree murder, armed burglary, and robbery. The court found error in the jury instruction for robbery, which improperly instructed the jury that the state needed to prove intent to temporarily or permanently deprive property, when the robbery statute requires proof of intent to permanently deprive.
The court held that the trial court erred in modifying the robbery instruction. The robbery statute (section 812.13) is separate and distinct from the omnibus theft statute and requires proof of specific intent to permanently deprive another of property, not temporary deprivation. The judgment and sentence on the robbery count was reversed and remanded for a new trial on that charge.
[1] The intent to permanently deprive the owner of property is an essential element of the crime of robbery.
[2] A jury instruction for robbery that states the state must prove intent to "temporarily or permanently deprive" is erroneous.
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“when a person is charged with violation of section 812.13, the robbery statute, the state is required to prove that the accused had the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.”
Establishes the key legal principle that robbery requires specific intent to permanently deprive, distinguishing it from the theft statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Edward Hall was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, aggravated battery, attempted first-degree murder, possession of a firearm du…
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 Intent To Permanently Deprive cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Thomas Edward Hall, was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, aggravated battery, attempted first-degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and robbery. He raises four points on appeal; we considered all four but find merit only in one.
The point under consideration is whether the trial court erred in its jury instruction on robbery. Appellant was charged with robbery under section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). The standard jury instruc tion for robbery includes language that the state must establish the defendant’s intent to permanently take the property of another. The trial court relying on the 1982 amendment to the theft statute, changed that part of the instruction to read “temporarily or permanently deprive.” Appellant objected to the instruction timely.
In view of the present statutory scheme, when a person is charged with violation of section 812.014(1), Florida Statutes (1985), the theft statute, the state must prove that the accused had the intent to deprive the owner of property either temporarily or permanently. See State v. Dunmann, 427 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1983) at 168 n.*. Whereas when a person is charged with violation of section 812.13, the robbery statute, the state is required to prove that the accused had the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. See Vaughn v. State, 460 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). This is presently the law until changed by the legislature.
In Dunmann the supreme court pointed out that the passing of the omnibus theft, statute by the legislature had no effect on section 812.13, the robbery statute. As we read Dunmann, the robbery statute is separate and distinct from the omnibus theft act and maintains its vitality, one essential element of which is the intent to permanently deprive another of property.
After the passage of the omnibus theft statute, our sister court in Vaughn considering the robbery statute held: “There is no doubt that the intent to permanently deprive another of property is an element of robbery.” The court in Vaughn affirmed the appellant’s conviction but for reasons not pertinent here.
In light of Dunmann and Vaughn, we agree with appellant that the instruction was erroneous.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence on the robbery count and remand for a new trial on that charge. In all other respects we affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences.
DANAHY, C.J., SCHEB, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 570 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…the victim of his property. We find no error in that charge as we construe the law of Florida in regard to the elements of robbery as they exist today. In reaching that conclusion, we recede from the previous holding of this court in Hall v. State, 505 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA), cause dismissed, 509 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1987), in which we stated that an essential element of proof in regard to the crime of robbery is “that the accused had the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.” (Emp…
-
Eston Bullard, Jr. v. State, 515 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…“permanently” deprive the robbery victim of property. The standard jury instructions do not include the word “temporarily,” and robbery requires the specific intent to permanently deprive. Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981). In Hall v. State, 505 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the court found reversible error in a similar instruction where the objection was preserved for appeal. In the case below, there was no timely objection. Therefore, the question is whether the erroneous instruction was fundamenta…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Dunmann, 427 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1983)
- Vance Vaughn v. State, 460 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)