DAVID SELLARS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court denied David Sellars' petition for rehearing in a perjury conviction, rejecting his argument that the trial court's jury charge improperly assumed contested facts and invaded the jury's fact-finding role.
The charge, while somewhat cumbersome and not a model instruction, was not sufficiently misleading to constitute prejudicial error because it was framed conditionally on the jury's belief in the evidence and concluded with proper reasonable doubt language, and the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict.
“The charge commences with the words': 'The Court charges you of its own motion that if you believe from the evidence in this case,' etc., and after referring to the existence of certain material facts in the manner complained of by the plaintiff in error, concludes with the language: 'If you do not so believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, you will find him not guilty.'”
Describes the structure of the jury charge and shows it contained conditional language and proper reasonable doubt instruction, negating the prejudicial effect Sellars claimed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSellars was charged with perjury. At trial, the court gave a jury charge that referenced certain material facts in a manner that Sellars contended ass…
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 Perjury cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
By petition for rehearing, the Court is requested to examine the principal charge given by the trial court as to those matters of fact requisite to be found by the jury in order to justify a verdict of guilty of perjury, for the purpose of determining whether or not the charge was prejudicial to the defendant as assuming that certain material and controverted facts were conclusively established by the evidence and stating as law matters of fact which the jury should determine. See Hisler v. State, 52 Fla. 30, 42 So. R. 692; Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411, 90 So. R. 156.
Upon the original consideration of this case, the Court carefully scrutinized and weighed the charge in question, having in mind the criticism just stated. The Court was then, and is now, of the opinion that while the charge complained of is somewhat cumbersome, and is not to be commended as a model, it is not sufficiently misleading as an unwarranted charge upon the facts to constitute prejudicial error. The charge commences with the words’: “The Court charges you of its own motion that if you believe from the evidence in this case,” etc., and after re ferring to the existence of certain material facts in the manner complained of by the plaintiff in error, concludes with the language: “If you do not so believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, you will find him not guilty.” In view of that language in the charge, and in view of the ample sufficiency of the evidence to which the charge applies to sustain the verdict, if not to conclusively establish the matters of fact in question, we are not convinced that the jury was misled by the charge as a whole.
Rehearing denied.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
On petition for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hisler v. State, 52 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1906)
- Nettie Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1921)