BRUCE ERIC NUTTER, 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.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and false imprisonment for binding a victim with duct tape during a home burglary. The court reversed the false imprisonment conviction, finding that the jury instruction failed to include a necessary element: that the confinement was not done to facilitate commission of a felony, which constituted fundamental error.
The burglary conviction is affirmed, but the false imprisonment conviction is reversed and a new trial is ordered because the jury instruction on false imprisonment failed to include instruction on element 3(b), which states that the defendant must have acted for a purpose other than to commit or facilitate commission of any felony.
[1] A conviction for false imprisonment requires proof that the defendant confined or restrained the victim against their will, without lawful authority, and for a purpose ot…
[2] Failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime constitutes fundamental error, even if no objection was made at trial.
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“From the evidence we believe it was necessary to give (b) because the jury could possibly find that the binding of the victim was done to facilitate the commission of the felony, burglary. If the jury so found then appellant would not be guilty of the crime.”
Establishes that the instruction omission was material because the evidence supported a finding that the confinement facilitated the burglary, which would negate false imprisonment liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered a home as a burglar. Before leaving, he bound his victim with duct tape, apparently to facilitate his escape. He was convicted of bo…
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
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a burglary conviction and a false imprisonment conviction. The evidence is that appellant entered a home as a burglar and before leaving, probably to facilitate his escape, he bound his victim with duct tape. For the binding he was convicted of false imprisonment. The standard jury instructions regarding this crime are as follows.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT F.S. 787.02 Before you can find the defendant guilty of False Imprisonment, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) [forcibly] [secretly] [by threat] [confined] [abducted] [imprisoned] [restrained] (victim) against [his][her] will. 2. (Defendant) had no lawful authority. 3. (Defendant) acted for any purpose other than to: a. hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage. b. commit or facilitate commission of any felony. c. inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person. d. interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. Confinement of a child under the age of thirteen (13) is against his will if such confinement is without the consent of his parent or legal guardian. As to element 3 there is a note telling the judge to give (a), (b), (e) or (d), as applicable. The judge gave none of them. From the evidence we believe it was necessary to give (b) because the jury could possibly find that the binding of the victim was done to facilitate the commission of the felony, burglary. If the jury so found then appellant would not be guilty of the crime. Even though no objection was made to the instructions, it was fundamental error to fail to properly instruct regarding an element of the crime. State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1991); Gloster v. State, 603 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1989) from Rojas v. State, 535 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) where our supreme court held it was fundamental error to fail to instruct the jury regarding excusable and justifiable homicide. The conviction as to the burglary is affirmed. The false imprisonment conviction is reversed and a new trial ordered.
AFFIRMED; REVERSED.
COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delmetric Dowling v. State, 723 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…, failure to give a complete or accurate instruction constitutes fundamental error if it relates to an element of the charged offense. See State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1991); Scott v. State, 710 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Nutter v. State, 679 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We agree with the state’s main contention that the court did not err in instructing the jury, because the false imprisonment instruction it gave was complete and accurate in s…
-
Scott v. State, 710 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ictim or another person. (d) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 94e. In reading the instruction to the jury the trial court omitted section (b) from the charge. In Nutter v. State, 679 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), decided prior to the filing of the initial brief in petitioner’s appeal, the court held it was fundamental error not to give section (b) when the jury could possibly find that the binding of the victim in that case was done to f…
Authorities Cited
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Batraville Vincent Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- Rojas v. State, 535 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Gloster v. State, 603 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)