KAYRON O. ERVIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's special instruction answering a jury question regarding extortion is not reversible error when it correctly states the law and does not suggest a verdict or coerce the jury.
[1] A trial court's special jury instruction responding to a jury question regarding the elements of extortion does not constitute reversible error when it correctly states t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKayron O. Ervin was convicted of grand theft of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, and extortion. During jury deliberations, the jury submitted a…
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 Extortion cases and more on FLexlaw
March 8, 2018 PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Appellant, Kayron O. Ervin, challenges his judgment and sentences for the crimes of grand theft of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, and extortion, raising two points for our review. We affirm on Point I without comment, but our affirmance on Point II merits an explanation.
During its deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the trial court. Appellant claims the trial court’s special instruction given in response to the question negated his entire defense to the charge of extortion. We disagree. Under the facts of this case, the trial court’s answer was a correct statement of the law regarding extortion. See Duan v. State, 970 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Furthermore, we conclude the instruction neither suggested
2
a verdict nor coerced the jury to reach a hasty decision. In sum, Appellant’s defense to the charge of extortion remained viable, and he has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.