PHILIP SATAHOO, A/K/A DAVID TAYLOR, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Zamir Garzon v. State, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2008)
  …Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (use of “and/or” found not fundamental error because codefendant acquitted of all charges); Pizzo v. State, 916 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (use of “and/or”), quashed on other grounds, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla.2006); Davis v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (use of "and/or”); Randolph v. State, 903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (codefendant to Davis); Zeno v. State, 910 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (use of “and/or” with principals instruction); Dorsett v. McRay, 901 So. 2d 225 (Fla.…
• Dorsett v. McRAY, 901 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
  …occurred when, through the use of the “and/ or” conjunction,1 the trial court confusingly and incorrectly implied that Dorsett could be convicted solely upon a finding that Lloyd’s conduct satisfied the elements of the offenses. See Davis v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cabrera v. State, 890 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Concepcion v. State, 857 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 774 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Gas…
• Rasheed Randolph v. State, 903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
  …conclude that the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury, because it included the conjunction “and/or” between Randolph’s name and the name of his co-defendant in essential jury instructions. We reverse.1 In Davis v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court reversed the convictions of Randolph’s codefendant, Sherrey Davis, based on the jury instructions at issue.2 Because the instructions given for Randolph were identical to those given for Davis, we also reverse Randolph…

Authorities Cited

• Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
• Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
• Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)