LEE ANDERSON, 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.
Lee Anderson was convicted of burglary after attempting to break into a home and being stabbed by the homeowner. On appeal, Anderson challenged the trial court's response to a jury question about the ownership of a utility knife found in his possession, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury to rely on its own recollection of the evidence.
The trial court properly handled the jury question by instructing jurors to rely on their own memories of the evidence, as no additional evidence could be presented after both parties rested. The ownership of the utility knife was not dispositive to the burglary conviction, as the jury could have found the necessary intent based on the stealthy manner of entry and the presence of Stolzenberg's items near Anderson's bicycle.
[1] A jury must rely on its own recollection of the evidence when deliberating and cannot be provided with additional evidence after both parties have rested.
[2] A trial court may properly instruct a jury to rely on their own memories when they ask a question about evidence that was not presented 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“Experience, however, teaches that one can never predict the reason a jury asks a question.”
Establishes that the court cannot infer from a jury question what evidence the jury relied upon for its verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Stolzenberg heard scratching noises at his back door and discovered someone cutting through a window screen with a sharp object. When the intrud…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
James Stolzenberg was awakened by the sound of scratching noises at his back door. When he investigated, he saw someone using a sharp object to cut through the screen on a window next to the door. Stolzenberg retrieved a knife from the kitchen, and when the intruder stuck his hand through the screen to open the door, Stolzenberg stabbed the man’s wrist. The intruder fled but was apprehended in a wooded area, bleeding profusely with a utility knife lying next to him. The intruder was identified as Lee Anderson. He was charged with and convicted of burglary of a dwelling.
Anderson appeals, contending that the court erred in its response to a jury question. We disagree and affirm.
During deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking the following question: “Ownership of the utility knife — we can’t recall — was Stolzenberg owner of the knife?” The judge conferred with counsel:
COURT: And — but I don’t — how do you want to handle it? What do you say, the State?
STATE: I think we should tell them to rely on their own memory.
COURT: Tell them we can’t supplement, we can’t provide additional evidence at this time?
STATE: Right. I think that’s appropriate.
DEFENSE: Judge, the only option I. would have if they feel like he stole the knife, obviously that would support the burglary conviction. I think the evidence — there’s no evidence as to ownership. I think that’s what they should be told ... one way or the other, whether it belonged to him.
COURT: Tell the jury no evidence as to ownership. There was no evidence produced to the — would you agree with that? STATE: I agree that there wasn’t any evidence as to ownership, but I think that should be left to their recollection. I don’t think that should be our recollection. I think it should be what they remember the evidence to be.
The court then instructed the jury:
COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I have your question. And because both parties have rested — in other words, the case is at a conclusion. You have to . rely on your own memories. And we can’t give you any additional evidence, evidence at this time, so you will have to rely on your own memory. I’m sorry.
Anderson takes the position that the jury, in asking about the ownership of the knife found in Anderson’s possession in the woods, must have relied on the theft of that knife to find the necessary intent to prove the crime of burglary. Experience, however, teaches that one can never predict the reason a jury asks a question. In this case, there was testimony about two knives — the “sharp object” being used to gain access and the knife used to stab Anderson. The testimony indicated that no portion of Anderson’s body entered the Stolzenberg home other than his arm. Nor did the State contend that the utility knife was stolen from Stolzenberg. The jury may well have found the necessary intent based on the fact that the entering was done “stealthily and without the consent of the owner ...” (See section 810.07, Florida Statutes, which is a part of the jury instructions on burglary) and the fact that items belonging to Stolzenberg were found stacked near Anderson’s bicycle outside Stol-zenberg’s house. In any event, it was the jury’s recollection of the evidence that was important.
In short, we believe the trial court handled the question properly.