RASHEED RANDOLPH, 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.
The court held that the trial court committed fundamental error by including 'and/or' between defendant's name and co-defendant's name in jury instructions.
Rasheed Randolph was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The jury instructions contained an 'and/or' conjunction…
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 Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Rasheed Randolph appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We 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’s convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . We do not find merit in Randolph's argument that the trial court erred in admitting Detective Garfield’s testimony regarding her previous contact with Randolph, and we affirm that point without discussion.
. Randolph and Davis were tried together.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zamir Garzon v. State, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2008)…odefendant 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. 3d DCA 2005) (failure to assert on appeal that use of "and/or” was fund…
-
Brigham v. State, 950 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…wever, because the postconviction court’s February 1, 2005, order gave leave to amend and did not place a deadline on when Brigham could refile his motion, the court erred in dismissing the amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely. See Jumper v. State, 903 So. 2d 264, 265-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that rule 3.850 motion was not time barred where the order did not place any time limitation on when the defendant would refile his rule 3.850 motion); see also Mendes v. State, 770 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…
-
Raymundo Zeno v. State, 910 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ranted. [*397] CASANUEVA2 and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. . This court has reached the same conclusion in subsequent decisions involving the same or [*396] similar jury instructions. Davis v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Randolph v. State, 903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Rios v. State, 905 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Cabrera’s codefendant).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Satahoo v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Sherrey Davis v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)