MARY BUNION, 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.
Mary Bunion appealed her convictions for aggravated assault and second degree murder, challenging sentencing credit calculations and the trial court's refusal to reinstruct the jury on justifiable use of force. The appellate court modified the sentence to correct a clerical error in jail time credit and affirmed the convictions, finding any instructional error harmless.
The sentence in BR-320 is modified to reflect the oral pronouncement of 143 days jail time credit. Although it was error for the trial judge to refuse to reinstruct on justifiable use of force, the error was harmless because the jury did not request such reinstructions and unanimously declined them after being asked, indicating they understood the instruction and had no questions about it.
[1] A court must modify a judgment and sentence to reflect the lower court's oral pronouncement regarding jail time credit.
[2] A trial court's refusal to reinstruct a jury on a defense theory, even if erroneous, may be harmless error if the jury indicates it does not require further instruction o…
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“Although it was error for the trial judge to refuse to reinstruct on Bunion's theory of defense, the failure to reinstruct was not reversible error under the circumstances of this case.”
The court acknowledges the trial court committed error but applies the harmless error doctrine to avoid reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBunion was convicted of aggravated assault (BR-320) and simple battery and second degree murder (BR-321). At sentencing, the trial court orally announ…
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 Non-Deadly Force cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mary Bunion appeals her convictions and sentences for aggravated assault (BR-320), and simple battery and second degree murder (BR-321). We modify and affirm.
Appellant raises several issues on appeal, only two of which merit discussion. At the sentencing hearing the lower court announced that it would give appellant 143 days jail time credit; however, the judgment and sentence for appellant’s aggravated assault conviction erroneously provided for only 2 days jail time credit. Accordingly, the sentence in BR-320 is modified to properly reflect the lower court’s oral pronouncement of 143 days jail time credit.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to reinstruct the jury on justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force. After deliberating approximately one and one-half hours, the jury sent a note to the trial judge requesting to hear how the law differentiates between (a) guilty as charged and (b) guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter with respect to the second degree murder charge. The judge agreed to reinstruct the jury on second degree murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. He further stated he would ask the jurors whether they wanted to be rein-structed on the justifiable use of deadly and nondeadly force. Defense counsel objected to leaving the decision up to the jury and requested that the court reinstruct on justifiable use of deadly and nondeadly force. The trial judge denied this request. The jurors were then asked whether they wanted to hear the instruction on justifiable use of deadly and nondeadly force again and, after conferring among themselves, they unanimously indicated that they did not.
Although it was error for the trial judge to refuse to reinstruct on Bunion’s theory of defense, the failure to reinstruct was not reversible error under the circumstances of this case. The jury did not request rein-struction on the justifiable use of deadly and nondeadly force and, after being questioned as to whether they wanted to hear such reinstruction, they unanimously agreed they did not. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that the jury had been adequately instructed on the issue of justifiable use of deadly and nondeadly force, understood the instruction, and had no questions regarding it. Under those circumstances the error was harmless.
As modified, the judgments and sentences appealed are AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.