KENNETH J. THOMAS, 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.
Kenneth Thomas was convicted of attempted strong-arm robbery of a bicycle, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury that a good-faith belief in ownership of the property constitutes a complete defense to robbery. The appellate court reversed, holding that this omission constituted fundamental error requiring a new trial.
The trial court's omission of an instruction on the good-faith belief defense constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal. A well-founded belief in one's right to allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to theft and robbery, and the court must instruct the jury on any defense supported by a reasonable view of the evidence, even if the defendant fails to propose a jury instruction.
[1] A good faith belief in ownership of the property is a complete defense to a charge of theft.
[2] The intent to permanently deprive another of property is an essential element of robbery.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a well-founded belief in one's right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft, Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited, and because the demonstration of a theft is indispensable to a robbery conviction, Arnold v. State, 83 So.2d 105, 108 (Fla.1955), to a robbery case as well.”
Establishes the core legal principle that good-faith belief in ownership is a complete defense to robbery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was charged with armed robbery and tried for attempted strong-arm robbery of a bicycle. At trial, Thomas claimed he believed the bicycle belong…
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 Fundamental Error In Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Charged with armed robbery, Thomas was found guilty of attempted strong-arm robbery of a bicycle which he claimed, at the jury trial below, he thought belonged to him. Notwithstanding that there was ample, although disputed, evidence that the defendant believed in good faith that he owned the property, the trial judge did not instruct the jury that such a belief constituted a lawful defense to the offense charged. This omission requires reversal for a new trial.1
It is well settled that a well-founded belief in one’s right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft, Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited, and because the demonstration of a theft is indispensable to a robbery conviction, Arnold v. State, 83 So. 2d 105, 108 (Fla.1955), to a robbery case as well. State v. Steele, 150 Wash. 466, 273 P. 742 (1929); see Vaughn v. State, 460 So. 2d 505, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“There is no doubt that the intent to permanently deprive another of property is an element of robbery.”); see also State v. Parker, 102 Wash.2d 161, 683 P. 2d 189 (1984). Nor is there any question that the trial court is obliged to instruct the jury as to any defense which, as here, is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence. Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Rodriguez, 396 So. 2d at 799.
The state disputes none of these propositions. It argues only that the issue was not properly preserved below because, as is indeed apparent from the record, the defendant did not submit an adequate proposed jury instruction on the subject for consideration by the trial court. While this fact would ordinarily preclude the defendant from claiming error in failing to charge on a particular subject, see Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Rodriguez, 396 So. 2d at 800, it is not determinative in this case. This is because the “good faith” defense “went to the very heart, indeed to the existence of the defense” below. Rodriguez, 396 So. 2d at 800. The lack of an instruction on what was the very basis of the defendant’s position constituted fundamental error, which by definition need not be properly asserted in the trial court. Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 548, 20 So. 2d 798, 800 (1945) (omission from self-defense instruction of right to resist if defendant believed himself in imminent danger which went to the essence and entirety of the defense fundamental error); Stinson v. State, 245 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (same); Whitehead v. State, 245 So. 2d 94, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (omission from definition of justifiable homicide of theory relevant to defendant’s case fundamental error); Bagley v. State, 119 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) (failure to adequately instruct on defense of justifiable homicide fundamental error); cf. Rodriguez, 396 So. 2d at 800. See generally Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited at 544-45, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1149, 103 S.Ct. 793, 74 L.Ed.2d 998 (1983).
Accordingly, the judgment under review is reversed. For the reason stated in note 1,the time for rehearing is reduced to three days.
. This result does not particularly help Mr. Thomas since he was sentenced to four and one-half years imprisonment in June of 1984 and has undoubtedly been released by now. The delay in consideraton of this relatively simple appeal was caused entirely by the failure of the public defender’s office to process the case in anything remotely resembling a timely manner. (This appeal was dismissed on February 15, 1985, because no appellant's brief had been filed. It was not reinstated until October 6, 1987, when a brief was finally tendered. Even then, however, Thomas’s lawyer did not bring the necessity of an accelerated disposition of the case to our attention. The case, therefore, took its normal course until the oral argument, which took place on June 1, 1988.) We again admonish that this situation cannot be permitted to continue. See Hut v. State, 519 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698, 700 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158, 161 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Alfaro v. State, 837 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…t for a claim of right instruction or objection to its omission, constitutes fundamental error. Id. at 1058 (citing Howard v. State, 561 So. 2d 1362, 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Tobey v. State, 533 So. 2d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Thomas v. State, 526 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)). We take this opportunity to clarify that we do not adopt these holdings, as we believe that they are in conflict with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993). In Sochor, the…
-
Thomas v. State, 584 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…available to a defendant who seeks to collect a debt or recover money by use of force or threat, and our research has not shown any Florida case directly on point. In support of the requested instruction, Thomas relies primarily on Thomas v. State, 526 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 536 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1988), and Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), arguing that both cases have recognized that a defendant’s good faith belief that he has the right to the property taken negates t…1 / 4
-
Abdullah Hakeem Muteei v. State, 708 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…on constitutes fundamental error. Reversal would thus be required notwithstanding the defense’s failure to request the instruction or to object to the instructions as given. In support of his argument, Muteei relies principally upon Thomas v. State, 526 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 536 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1988). Indeed, in Thomas, we concluded that it was fundamental error to fail to instruct the jury on a defense that was the foundation of the defendant’s position at trial, where there was evidence whi…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545 (Fla. 1945)
- THE Florida BAR v. Merwin, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1982)
- Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Smith v. Florida, 462 U.S. 1145 (U.S. 1983)
- Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Lelia Padgett Bagley v. State, 119 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Arnold v. State, 83 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1955)