DAVID S. JAMES, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Petrucelli v. State, 855 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
  …a defendant must prove that the special instruction was supported by the evidence, was a correct statement of the law and was not confusing or misleading, and the standard instruction did not adequately cover the theory of defense.” Keller v. State, 849 So. 2d 385, [*155] 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 756 (Fla.2001). Ms. Crocker acknowledged that she was not allowed to bring Petrucelli into the home and that she would sneak him into the home. This testimony raises seriou…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
  …accurately and sufficiently on the circumstances of the case.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.985. The fact that a definition is not a theory of defense does not render it irrelevant or unnecessary if the definition is “central to the defense.” Keller v. State, 849 So. 2d 385, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing, in prosecution for vehicular homicide, trial court’s refusal to give defense-requested special instruction on traffic regulation prohibiting left turns against the right-of-way where defendant sought to prove he w…
• Wynkoop v. State, 14 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
  …e left-hand turn statute because “the conduct of the decedents or the decedents’ driver could only be controlling if it were the Sole proximate cause of the accident.” Id. Other cases have reiterated the Filmon Court’s holding. See Keller v. State, 849 So. 2d 385, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“In a vehicular homicide prosecution, evidence of a victim’s negligence is relevant only if the victim’s act was the sole proximate cause of the accident that caused the victim’s death”); Brimmer v. State, 541 So. 2d 1307, 1…

Authorities Cited

• Cunningham v. State, 795 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)