THOMAS WATKINS, 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 Watkins appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his oral request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the instruction request should have been submitted in writing and that the evidence did not establish that intoxication impaired his ability to form the specific intent required for robbery.
The trial court properly denied the instruction request for two reasons: (1) special jury instructions not part of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions must be submitted in writing to preserve the issue for appeal, and (2) the evidence did not establish that appellant's intoxication impaired his ability to form the specific intent necessary to commit robbery.
[1] A special jury instruction request, not part of the standard jury instructions at the time of trial, must be submitted in writing to preserve the issue for appellate revi…
[2] Voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to present evidence of intoxication sufficient to negate the specific intent required for the cri…
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 jury instruction is requested that is not part of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, the requested instruction must be submitted in writing to the trial court if the issue is to be preserved for appellate review.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for special jury instructions in criminal cases at that time.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried in September 1986 for robbery with a firearm. Evidence showed appellant had been drinking before the robbery, but there was no evi…
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 Florida Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm raising several issues, only one of which merits discussion.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his oral request for a jury instruction regarding the defense of voluntary intoxication. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm. At the conclusion of appellant’s trial, which was held in September 1986, the trial court gave two reasons for denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on intoxication: (1) it was a special request instruction and it was not furnished to the court in writing as required by Rule 3.390(e), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (2) the evidence did not establish that appellant’s intoxication impaired his specific intent to commit the crime of robbery.
We find that the trial court’s first reason for denying the request was correct at the time of his ruling, and that the second reason was correct based on the evidence before the court.
When a jury instruction is requested that is not part of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, the requested instruction must be submitted in writing to the trial court if the issue is to be preserved for appellate review. Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). While there is currently a standard jury instruction on voluntary intoxication (Instruction 3.04(g)), this was restored to the criminal jury instructions in May 1987, after appellant’s trial. Appellant’s trial fell during the hiatus period when there was no standard jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.1 Thus, appellant’s special request instruction should have been in writing.
Next, voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence of intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient to establish that he was unable to form the intent necessary to commit the crime charged. Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1985).
Evidence of alcohol consumption prior to the commission of the crime does not, by itself, mandate the giving of a jury instruction with regard to voluntary intoxication. Id. at 1264.
Here, there was evidence that appellant was drinking before the robbery, but there was no evidence as to the amount of alcohol consumed during the several hours he drove around prior to the robbery. Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 1113, 1115 (Fla.1981).
Further, there is testimony from two guests at the motel where the robbery occurred and from appellant’s companion in the robbery indicating that the robbery was carried out from a preconceived plan. See Jacobs, 396 So. 2d at 1115. While the officers who arrested appellant and his companion gave some equivocal testimony concerning appellant’s condition after the robbery, the record shows that appellant was at a pub for about an hour after the robbery and before his arrest. At best, some of the testimony intimates that appellant may have been intoxicated one hour after the offense, but no evidence was introduced indicating that appellant was intoxicated during the hours preceding the crime such that he was unable to form the intent necessary to commit the crime charged.
AFFIRMED.
NIMMONS, J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., concurs in result.
. The former voluntary intoxication instruction, 2.11(c), did not survive the 1981 amendments to the standard instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 808 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2002)…instructions that are not part of the standard jury instructions must be submitted to the trial court in writing if the issue is to be preserved for appellate review. See Gavlick v. State, 740 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Watkins v. State, 519 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.390(c). This was the assumption under which I worked as a trial judge in the Fo…
-
Steele v. State, 561 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rt: (c) At the close of the evidence, or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. See also Watkins v. State, 519 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) — “When a jury instruction is requested that is not part of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, the requested instruction must be submitted in writing to the trial court if the issue is to be preserved for appellate revi…
-
Randolph v. State, 526 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…of imbibing such that the issue of whether appellant was so intoxicated as not to have been able to form the intent necessary to commit the crime charged should have been submitted to the jury for its factual determination. Compare Watkins v. State, 519 So. 2d 760, 13 FLW 403 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 10, 1988). We vacate the conviction and sentence for burglary on the trial procedure error only and remand to the trial court for a new trial in accordance herewith. ZEHMER, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents with wri…
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
- Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)
- Eligaah Ardalle Jacobs v. State, 396 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1981)
- Klein v. Lancer, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- McCord Wayne Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)