TRACY L. COLLIER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction, holding that jury instruction on escape adequately conveyed the intent element despite deviation from standard form, and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying challenges for cause.
A jury instruction on escape that omits the standard phrase 'intending to avoid lawful confinement' but includes 'by leaving without permission' adequately conveys the intent element of escape under Florida law.
[1] A jury instruction on escape that deviates from the standard form by omitting 'intending to avoid lawful confinement' but includes 'by leaving without permission' adequat…
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 intelligenceCollier was charged with escape and convicted. The trial court gave a jury instruction on escape that deviated from the standard instruction by omitti…
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 Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Tracy L. Collier, contends that the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed to instruct on the element of intent in charging the jury on the crime of escape. While the escape instruction given deviated from the standard jury instruction by omitting the phrase “intending to avoid lawful confinement,” we conclude that the court adequately instructed the jury regarding the intent element of escape by including the phrase “by leaving without permission” to modify the term “escape” in the third section of the instruction. See Howell v. State, 503 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding that escape instruction given to the jury sufficiently articulated the elements of escape as set forth in section 944.40, Florida Statutes, even though it deviated from the standard jury instruction). We therefore decline to find fundamental error as to this issue.
Turning to appellant’s jury challenges, we conclude that the issue was not preserved in regard to juror Mulligan, because Collier did not renew his objection to the ruling on Mulligan or accept the jury subject to his previous objections. See Ault v. State, 866 So. 2d 674, 683, 2003 WL 22508502 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2003). Although Collier adequately preserved the issue as to juror Lloyd by renewing his. objection to the court’s refusal'to strike her for cause after all of his peremptory challenges had been exhausted, the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude that the judge abused his discretion by refusing to excuse Lloyd for cause.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ault v. State, 866 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2003)
- Berger v. Atl. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)