ERNEST WILSON, 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.
Ernest Wilson was convicted of robbery after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400 by sending only written definitions of charges to the jury room without providing all jury instructions, requiring strict compliance with the rule.
Literal compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400 is mandatory. The trial court's provision of only written crime definitions without all instructions violated the rule's requirement that if any instructions are taken to the jury room, all instructions must be taken. This violation requires reversal.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a) mandates that if any jury instructions are provided in writing to the jury room, all instructions must be provided.
[2] Failure to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a) regarding the submission of written jury instructions to the jury room constitutes reversible…
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“We agree that anything less than literal compliance with rule 3.400 requires reversal.”
Establishes the strict standard for compliance with the jury instruction rule
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnest Wilson was tried for robbery. During jury deliberations, the trial court sent written copies of only the definitions of the crimes charged to t…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Wilson appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery.1 He raises a number of arguments, only one of which requires reversal.2
Over defense objection, the trial court sent a written copy of the definitions of the crimes charged back to the jury room when the jury retired for deliberations. On appeal, Defendant argues that the act of giving the jury only the written definitions, without also providing it with a copy of all of the instructions, requires reversal as it violates the mandatory language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400. Rule 3.400(a) provides in pertinent part:
(a) Discretionary Materials. The court may permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room:
* * *
(3) in noncapital cases, any instructions given, but if any instructions [sic] is taken all the instructions shall be taken;....
We agree that anything less than literal compliance with rule 3.400 requires reversal. See, e.g., Bowe v. State, 600 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (reversible error to give the jury written instruction only on charge requested; reversible error occurs when a court fails to strictly comply with rule); Zarattini v. State, 571 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (submission to jury of only the written instruction on possession, in response to jury’s request, was reversible error in cocaine prosecution); Simmons v. State, 541 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversible error to furnish the jury with only a portion of the jury instructions in writing); Morgan v. State, 377 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (reversible error to submit some, but not all, of the standard jury instructions to the jury in writing), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980); Faulk v. State, 296 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (even in the absence of objection, it was reversible error to give the additional instruction in re sponse to question from the jury without repeating the complete instructions on the subject involved; error was compounded by permitting that portion of the instructions to be taken into the jury room without the entire instructions).3
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
GOSHORN, GRIFFIN, JJ., and McNEAL, R., Associate Judge, concur. . § 812.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997).
. We specifically reject Defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a pretrial line-up. See State v. Kuntsman, 643 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quashing order compelling witness to view photo line-up in absence of strong or compelling reason); State v. Cobb, 619 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (quashing order compelling state’s witness to attend pre-trial line-up).
. The Second District has also addressed the issue. In Pettit v. State, 612 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court found that although reversal would ordinarily have been required based on the court's provision to the jury of only some of the written instructions, it would not be ordered in that case because defense counsel had affirmatively led the court into error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VAN Loan v. State, 779 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…copy of the jury instructions is discretionary; however, when any instruction is given the rule requires that “all the instructions shall be taken” to the jury room. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.400(a)(3).1 An identical issue was presented in Wilson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), wherein the defendant argued that providing the jury with only the written definition of the charges, without also furnishing a copy of all the instructions, violated the mandatory provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedur…
-
Rogers v. State, 844 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…08 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . Washington v. State, 758 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2000); Tomlinson v. State, 584 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 592 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1991). . Wilson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bowe v. State, 600 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). . Pease v. State, 712 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1997); State v. Colbert, 660 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1995). . See Chapman v. State, 446 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ferrazzoli v. State, 442…
-
State v. Bouchard, 922 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…any instructions is [sic] taken all the instructions shall be taken.” On direct appeal, courts have held that reversal is required when a trial court fails, over objection, to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 3.400. See Wilson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (stating that “anything less than literal compliance with rule 3.400 requires reversal”); Bowe v. State, 600 So. 2d 26, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that a trial court’s failure to strictly comply with rule 3.400 is reve…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Huntsman, 643 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Faulk v. State, 296 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Morgan v. State, 377 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Pettit v. State, 612 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Avery Simmons v. State, 541 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Zarattini v. State, 571 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Bowe v. State, 600 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State v. Robinson, 619 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. Carlton Eddie Cobb, 619 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)