MICHAEL CARINDA, 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.
The court held that the trial court's erroneous jury instruction on principals was harmless error because there was overwhelming evidence of the appellant's participation in the crime.
Appellant, a veterinarian, was convicted of using drugs on a race horse. The offense occurred in 1993, but the trial court used a jury instruction ado…
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 Principals (Criminal Law) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant, a veterinarian, appeals his conviction for two counts of using drugs on a race horse. Appellant worked with another veterinarian, Dr. Plante, and they were charged with “milkshaking” horses, i.e., forcing a large dose of sodium bicarbonate, sucrose and water down horses’ throats in order to enhance their performance. Plante v. Department of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation, 685 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
This offense took place in 1993, and appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in giving the present standard jury instruction on principals which was not adopted until 1995. Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We held in Hooper that the newer instruction, under which it is easier to convict, cannot be applied to a crime which preexisted it because it is an ex post facto violation.
The state argues that we should find, as we did in Hooper, that the erroneous instruction is harmless. In Hooper there was such extensive evidence that the appellant was a substantial participant in the crimes, not merely a principal, that we concluded that the error was harmless. Similarly, in the present case, there was also overwhelming evidence that the appellant was a participant. He admitted that he mixed the substance, delivered it to the groom, and instructed the groom as to how to administer it to the horse. His defense was that he did not do it to enhance the horse’s performance, but rather to ease the horse’s pain after the race. We thus find that the error in the principal instruction was harmless and, also, without further discussion, that the court correctly denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Affirmed.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tanner Dashner, 356 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…te to establish guilt without the two elements contained in the prior instruction, was an ex post facto violation,” but we concluded that the use of the new instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1145; see also Carinda v. State, 734 So. 2d 514, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding trial court erred by giving standard jury instruction on principals amended after commission of offense, but error was harmless). Hooper is materially distinguishable. Unlike the amended jury instruction in Hooper…
-
Martone v. State, 921 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…al Cases (95-2), 665 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1995). Thus, he claims, this constituted an ex post facto violation. He relies on our statements of law earlier set out on this issue in Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Carinda v. State, 734 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Although we question the continued viability of Hooper and Carinda, based on the holding of Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001), we do not reach that question. We have reviewed the evidenc…
-
Terrill Lamar Ailep v. State, 802 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996); Barfield v. State, 762 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Bateson v. [*515] State, 761 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Carinda v. State, 734 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Wilson, 686 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1996); Blattman v. Williams Island Assoc., Ltd., 592 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hooper v. State, 703 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Plante v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 685 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)