ALBERT JAMES WELLS, 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.
Albert Wells appealed his sexual battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the theory of principals liability. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Wells's motion for judgment of acquittal but reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the principals instruction was unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court held that the principals instruction was improper because the record lacked evidence that Wells both had conscious intent that the crime be done and did an act or said a word intended to incite the co-defendant to commit the crime. Mere presence at the crime scene during overlapping intervals does not justify a principals instruction.
[1] A principals instruction is not supported by evidence that a defendant was merely present at the crime scene without more.
[2] A principals instruction requires evidence that the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be done and took an act or said a word intended to incite a co-defenda…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“However, the record does not support the giving of the instruction because there was no evidence that Appellant both had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and also did an act or said a word intended to (and which did) incite the co-defendant to commit the crime.”
Establishes the legal standard for a valid principals instruction requiring both conscious intent and affirmative incitement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells was accused of sexual battery in an acquaintance rape case. Another male was present in the victim's apartment during the evening in question an…
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 Principals Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction for sexual battery, and raises several issues on appeal. We affirm the trial judge’s denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, but reverse on the ground that the jury should not have been instructed on the theory of principals, and we remand for a new trial. In light of this result, we do not address the other issues on appeal.
Appellant was essentially accused of “acquaintance rape”; however, another male was with Appellant in the victim’s apartment on the evening in question, and that person was tried in a separate proceeding. In the instant proceeding, the State requested that the jury be given the principals instruction, and the trial court gave the instruction over Appellant’s objection. However, the record does not support the giving of the instruction because there was no evidence that Appellant both had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and also did an act or said a word intended to (and which did) incite the co-defendant to commit the crime. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a). Appellant’s mere presence at the crime scene during overlapping intervals, without more, does not justify a principals instruction. See Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The error is not harmless because the verdict does not reveal whether the jury relied on the principals theory to convict Appellant, and because the instruction was likely to cause confusion in light of the State’s emphasis in closing argument that Appellant was “as guilty as” the co-defendant for everything the co-defendant did.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oreneile Masaka v. State, 4 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…evidence that the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be committed and did some act or said some word which was intended to and in fact did incite a third party to commit the crime with which the defendant is charged. See Wells v. State, 967 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a). For example, in Lovette, Lovette was charged with grand theft and burglary arising out of the alleged theft of property from the victim’s residence. 654 So. 2d at 605. The evi…
-
McGRIFF v. State, 12 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…used its discretion in instructing the jury on the law of principals. The principals instruction may be given if the evidence adduced at trial supports such an instruction. See Masaka v. State, 4 So. 3d 1274, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Wells v. State, 967 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Lewis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 617 So. 2d 1128, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). If there is no evidence that would support the principals theory, then the reading of the instruction is…
-
Donald Lenneth Banks v. State, 219 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 2017)…ed the following regarding the principals instruction in particular: The principals instruction may be given if the evidence adduced at trial supports such an instruction. See Masaka v. State, 4 So. 3d 1274, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Wells v. State, 967 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Lewis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 617 So. 2d 1128, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). If there is no evidence that would support the principals theory, then the reading of the instruction is…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)