HELEN M. FORCEIER, 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.
Helen M. Forceier was convicted of perjury by jury verdict. She appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and improper jury instructions regarding perjury law, but the appellate court affirmed her conviction, finding the evidence substantial and the instructional error, if any, waived by her failure to object at trial.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence abundantly sustained the jury verdict and that any instructional error was waived by the defendant's failure to timely object at trial and request clarifying instructions. While instructional error can be reviewed absent objection if sufficiently fundamental, no such error appeared in the record.
“Section 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that in a criminal case no party may assign as error or grounds of appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving jury instruction objections for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen M. Forceier was tried for perjury and convicted by jury verdict. The trial court gave instructions on the law of perjury to the jury. The defend…
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Helen M. Forceier, was found guilty by jury verdict of the offense of perjury. She urges reversal of the judgment of conviction upon two points, (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, and (2) that the jury was improperly and inadequately instructed with respect to the law of perjury and the defenses to the perjury charge.
*337As to the first ground, we have made a careful scrutiny of the record and find that the evidence abundantly sustains the verdict of the jury. Concerning the second ground, it is to he observed that it is phrased in language which is broad and general in nature. The defendant interposed no objection to the instructions given on the law of perjury by the trial court nor to any of the other instructions given; nor did she request any instruction to be given by the trial court in connection with the law of perjury.
Section 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that in a criminal case no party may assign as error or grounds of appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict. He is' required to state distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Thus, generally the failure to voice a timely objection precludes appellate review of the charges concerned. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 737; Clinton v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 82. However, in respect to jury instructions, an error of the trial court may be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an objection if the error is so fundamental as to warrant such action or when the appellate court in its judgment deems the interests of justice to so require. Henderson v. State, 1945, 155 Fla. 487, 20 So.2d 649; section 924.32, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, section 86, p. 366.
The case was submitted to the jury on the charges given by the trial judge, not only without objection by defendant to any of those charges but without request by her for a charge applying to any phase of the law of perjury. Where counsel feels that charges given by the trial court do not fully cover the essential issues in a trial, it is his duty to prepare and present a charge or charges embracing the additional points desired. Otherwise, he will not be heard to complain. Turner v. State, 1930, 99 Fla. 246, 126 So. 158. See also Miller v. State, 1918, 76 Fla. 518, 80 So. 314.
No fundamental or otherwise reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment of conviction with sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed,
SHANNON, C. J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ry has retired to consider its verdict. In this regard, one is-required to state distinctly the matter to which' he objects, as well as the grounds of his objection. Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367; Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 336, 337. Nor can objections as to instructions be raised for the first time by embodying them in motion for new trial. Simmons v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436. The trial court, in instructing the jury as-to manslaughter by culpable neglige…
-
Dupree v. State, 195 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…tness of the trial court’s charge, where there was no objection to the charge, no reference to it in the motion for new trial, and no assignment of error based thereon. See also Fla.Stat., Sec. 918.10(4), F.S.A., and Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 336. As seen from the above authorities, the general rule is that the failure to voice a timely objection [*3] precludes appellate review of the charges concerned. Finding no error in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed. SHAN…
-
Norris v. State, 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 225; Dryden v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 662; Owens v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 627; Dalton v. State, Fla. 949, 42 So. 2d 174; Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 650; Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 336; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 379; Clinton v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 82; Pearsall v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 58, cert. den., 396 U.S. 912, 90 S.Ct. 228, 24 L.Ed.2d 188; 4 B Fla.Dig., Criminal Law 1038(3); Jackson v. S…
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
- Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1930)
- Henderson v. State, 155 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1945)
- Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Miller v. State, 76 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1918)
- Forsythe v. Cary, 102 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Bennie Mark Miller v. State, 102 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Seelmann v. Castiglioni, 100 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)