EDDIE LEE RILES, 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 abused its discretion by denying the defendant's requested jury instruction on the 'afterthought' defense for robbery.
The defendant requested a special jury instruction explaining that if force was used primarily to commit another offense, not for the taking of proper…
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 Elements Of Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Eddie Lee Riles, challenges his convictions for robbery and battery on a person 65 years of age or older on several grounds. Because we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s request for a special jury instruction, we reverse Appellant’s robbery conviction. We affirm all other issues without further discussion.
Prior to the trial, Appellant filed “Defendant’s Request for Jury Instruction on ‘Afterthought.’ ” The requested instruction read:
One of the elements of the offense of robbery which must be proved beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt is that the accused used force in the taking of the property of another. If the evidence shows that any force used by the defendant was done with the primary motive of committing some other offense and that the motive for the use of force was for a reason not associated with the taking of property, then the offense of robbery has not been proved and you must find the defendant not guilty of that charge.
During the charge conference, Appellant renewed his request for the afterthought instruction, which was denied.
Appellant correctly argues that the standard jury instruction for robbery does not sufficiently explain the afterthought defense. Davis v. State, 922 So.2d 438, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Moreover, Appellant testified to a version of events, which, if believed by a jury, would have amounted to a theft. Because there was some evidence in the record to support his defense, Appellant was entitled to the requested instruction. Id. The denial of the requested instruction did not have any effect on Appellant’s battery conviction. Therefore, Appellant’s conviction for battery on a person 65 years of age or older is AFFIRMED, Appellant’s conviction for robbery is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for a new trial.
DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. State, 170 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…structions were inadequate to explain that taking property as an afterthought, after force was employed solely for another purpose, did not amount to robbery or carjacking. See DeJesus v. State, 98 So. 3d 105, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Riles v. State, 33 So. 3d 808, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Davis, 922 So. 2d at 444; Perkins, 814 So. 2d at 1179. The then4 standard jury instruction for carjacking, utilized in those cases and the present case alike, “erroneously allow[ed] the jury to ‘assume that so long as the f…
-
David v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…justifiable if resulting from shots fired in the proper and prudent defense of another, and, here, there was sufficient “evidence in the record to support [this theory of] defense, [David] was entitled to the requested instruction.” Riles v. State, 33 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citation omitted). Nonetheless, as the defense failed to alert the trial court to the flaw in the final instructions, we engage a fundamental error analysis.3 See Bush v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S145, S157 (Fla. May 14, 2020)…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 922 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)