COREY WOODYARD, 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.
Trial court erred by refusing to give the accomplice-witness cautionary instruction where the accomplice's testimony was essential to conviction and the defense theory was that the accomplice testified falsely.
When an accomplice's testimony is essential to conviction and the defendant's theory is that the accomplice testified falsely, the trial court must give Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.04(b) cautioning the jury about relying on accomplice testimony.
[1] When an accomplice's testimony is essential to conviction and the defendant's theory is that the accomplice testified falsely, the trial court must give the standard jury…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“You should use great caution in relying on the testimony of a witness who claims to have helped the defendant commit a crime. This is particularly true when there is no other evidence tending to agree with what the witness says about the defendant.”
Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.04(b) on accomplice testimony
Corey Woodyard was convicted of a crime based substantially on testimony from a putative accomplice. The defense theory was that the accomplice testif…
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 Theory Of Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Corey Woodyard, argues for reversal on grounds, among others, that the trial court declined to give Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.04(b) pertaining to the testimony of an accomplice. This instruction consists of the following:
You should use great caution in relying on the testimony of a witness who claims to have helped the defendant commit a crime. This is particularly true when there is no other evidence tending to agree with what the witness says about the defendant.
However, if the testimony of such a witness convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, or the other evidence in the case does so, then you should find the defendant guilty.
Here, as in Taylor v. State, 429 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), “there was sufficient evidence on which to base the instruction.” Cf. Hutchins v. State, 311 So. 2d 198, 198-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Without the putative accomplice’s testimony, the evidence would have been insufficient to convict. The defense’s theory was that the putative accomplice testified falsely at trial. The error was not harmless. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986). See generally Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1982) (‘Where there is any evidence introduced at trial which supports the theory of the defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense when he so requests.”).
Reversed and remanded.
BOOTH, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beachy v. State, 837 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…pendent act. Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000). Further, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense, if there is any evidence to support the requested instruction. Woodyard v. State, 823 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Mathews v. State, 799 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Langston v. State, 789 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Thus, “[w]here there is evidence from which a jury could determi…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)
- Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Aronson, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- Hutchins v. State, 311 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Taylor v. State, 429 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)