JAMES HAMPTON, 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.
James Hampton was convicted of cocaine possession and resisting arrest without violence. The court reversed the resisting arrest conviction, holding that the trial court erred by failing to give a jury instruction clarifying that the legality of the arrest was a question for the jury to decide.
The trial court erred in denying appellant's request for a special jury instruction on the lawfulness of the arrest. The instruction given failed to adequately clarify to the jury that the legality of the arrest was a question for its determination. Therefore, the conviction for resisting arrest without violence is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
[1] A defendant may raise the unlawfulness of an arrest as a defense to the charge of resisting arrest without violence.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a defendant's request for a special jury instruction concerning the legality of their arrest when such defense is raised.
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“in those cases where the defendant maintains that the arrest was unlawful and requests that the jury be instructed on that defense, an instruction should be given to insure that the jury understands that it must decide the issue”
Establishes the legal requirement from State v. Anderson that when an unlawful arrest defense is raised, a jury instruction must clarify the jury's role in deciding the lawfulness of the arrest
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHampton was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and resisting arrest without violence. At trial, Hampton raised the unlawfulness of his ar…
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 Special Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
Appellant, James Hampton, was convicted of possession of cocaine and resisting arrest without violence. At trial, Hampton validly raised the unlawfulness of his arrest as a defense to the charge of resisting arrest without violence, and requested that the jury be given a special jury instruction relating to such defense. We reverse the resisting arrest charge and hold that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for a special jury instruction concerning the legality of his arrest.
In State v. Anderson, 639 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla.1994), our supreme court stated:
[W]e hold that the standard instruction does not take the issue of the lawfulness of the arrest from the jury. However, in those cases where the defendant maintains that the arrest was unlawful and requests that the jury be instructed on that defense, an instruction should be given to insure that the jury understands that it must decide the issue, (emphasis added).
The Anderson court went on to find that there was no prejudice since the trial court’s “addition of the word ‘lawful’ to the standard [jury] instruction served to clarify that the legality of the arrest was an issue for the jury.” 639 So. 2d at 610-11. The trial court had instructed the jury that “ ‘effecting a lawful arrest constitutes lawful execution of a legal duty.’ ” Id. at 610 (emphasis in original).
In the instant case, the trial court instructed the jury that “the arrest and/or detention of a person constitutes the lawful execution of a legal duty.” In leaving out the word “lawful” prior to the word “arrest,” the trial court here, unlike the trial court in Anderson, failed to adequately clarify for the jury that the legality of the defendant’s arrest was an issue for its determination. In other words, although the jury was instructed that appellant’s arrest constituted the lawful execution of a legal duty by the police officer, it is not clear that the jury would have understood, from the instruction given, that the arrest itself must first have been a lawful one.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial on the charge of resisting arrest without violence.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 812 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…(hold-ing that where a defendant maintains that arrest was unlawful and requests that jury be instructed on defense of unlawful arrest, an instruction should be given to insure that jury understands that it must decide that issue); Hampton v. State, 733 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Hampton, the defendant was convicted of resisting arrest without violence and possession of cocaine. The defendant raised the unlawfulness of his arrest as a defense to the charge of resisting arrest without violence and requ…
-
Haywood L. Thomas v. State, 970 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…instruction or give the same instruction as in Anderson, stating that “effecting a lawful arrest constitutes lawful execution of a legal duty,” id. at 609, and the trial court refused, it would have committed reversible error. See Hampton v. State, 733 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing the appellant’s conviction for resisting arrest because the court erred in denying the appellant’s request for a special jury instruction); Bratcher v. State, 727 So. 2d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (same); Brannen v…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 639 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1994)