BENNIE MARK MILLER, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for resisting an officer with violence, finding sufficient evidence and that the appellant waived any error regarding jury instructions by failing to object at trial.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. No, the trial court did not err because the appellant failed to make a timely objection to the jury instructions at trial, thereby waiving the issue on appeal.
“We have examined the record and briefs of counsel and find that the record contains sufficient competent substantial evidence to sustain the jury's finding and as such should not be disturbed.”
This quote establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with resisting an officer with violence, found guilty by a jury, and sentenced to one year in jail. He appealed the convicti…
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 Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County. Appellant was charged with resisting an officer with violence to his person in violation of Section 843.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The jury found him guilty and the court sentenced him to serve one year in the county jail.
Appellant in the main suggests as error the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and the court’s refusal to give certain requested instructions to the jury requested by appellant.
We have examined the record and briefs of counsel and find that the record contains sufficient competent substantial evidence to sustain the jury’s finding and as such should not be disturbed.
The record also reveals that the appellant made no objection to the trial court’s instructions to the jury before the jury retired to consider its verdict. Such a timely objection is a mandatory predicate for an assignment of error on this ground. See Section 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; and Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 650; Dalton v. State, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 174; Brunke v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 43, 33 So.2d 226; and Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…, unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection.” See Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 737; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 247; and Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 379. Additional error is assigned by appellant upon the ground that the lower court erred in refusing to have appellant’s' testimony read to th'e juror…
-
Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1971)….Stat. § 918.10(4), F.S.A. provides that a party may not complain on appeal about a failure to give an instruction unless an objection has been made before the jury retires; see Pearsall v. State, 215 So. 2d 58 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1968); Miller v. State, 102 So. 2d 737 (1st D.C.A. Fla.1958). Whether failure to give an instruction can constitute fundamental error compelling a new trial in the interests of justice would depend upon the facts of the case. Compare Green v. State, 228 So. 2d 397 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1969) wi…
-
White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…charges given by the court. Thereby, under Rule 3.390(d) RCrP, the contention on appeal of error for refusal to give such requested charge [*116] is not presentable here. Rayner v. State, Fla.App.1973, 286 So. 2d 604; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 737. Moreover the record reveals that the jury charges given by the court included and adequately covered that element of intent. Refusal to give a requested charge when it is covered by charges given has been held not to constitute error in decisions…
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
- Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1947)
- Brunke v. State, 160 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1948)
- Dalton v. State, 42 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1949)
- Guarino v. State, 67 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1953)