JERRY GILBERT WRIGHT, 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.
Wright appeals his first-degree murder conviction and life sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on possible penalties during the guilt phase. The court affirms, holding that penalty instructions are not required during the guilt phase of non-capital trials, and certifies a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the application of amended Rule 3.390(a) to capital cases.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that penalty instructions are not required during the guilt phase of a non-capital trial. The court reasoned that the jury can be assumed to know the minimum and maximum penalties, and penalty considerations are only relevant during the sentencing or penalty phase when the jury is asked to recommend a sentence.
“The amended rule apparently requires the judge not to instruct on penalties in non-capital cases.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that penalty instructions are prohibited in non-capital trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. During trial, defense counsel requested that the judge instruct the ju…
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 Jury Instructions On Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing and/or certification of question to be one of great public importance. We deny the motion for rehearing but grant appellant’s motion for certification and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
WHETHER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.390(a) REQUIRES THAT A TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE POSSIBLE PENALTIES THAT ATTEND A CONVICTION FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE GUILT PHASE OF THE TRIAL UPON A TIMELY REQUEST?
Rehearing DENIED; question CERTIFIED.
W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Sections 59.041, 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1987); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
. The presiding judge shall charge the jury only upon the law of the case at the conclusion of argument of counsel and upon request of either the State or the defendant the judge shall include in said charge the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed, (including probation) for the offense for which the accused has been on trial, (emphasis added)
. Sections 921.141(1), (2) and (3), Fla.Stat. (1987). The purpose of this phase is so the jury may "determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Section 921.141(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ventura v. State, 794 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2001)…tt v. Dugger, 604 So. 2d at 468). Ventura meets the first requirement, as Jerry Wright’s life sentence was affirmed by the First District roughly a year after this Court affirmed Ventura’s conviction and death sentence in 1990. See Wright v. State, 585 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved, 596 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1992); Ventura, 560 So. 2d at 221 (1990). Ventura, however, fails to meet the second prong of the newly discovered evidence test. The evidence at Ventura’s trial established that Wright, through Mc…1 / 2
-
Wright v. State, 596 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Wright v. State, 585 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), in which the district court certified the following question of great public importance: Whether Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) requires that a trial judge instruct the jury on the possible penalties that attend a c…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981)
- Walsh v. State, 418 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1982)
- Coleman v. State, 484 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Barbree Croney v. State, 495 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)