ROBERT OWEN LITTLE, 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.
Robert Owen Little appeals his conviction for robbery, challenging the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of grand and petit larceny, and arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the facts did not warrant a lesser-included offense instruction and that competent and substantial evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict.
The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses because the facts did not warrant such a charge. The conviction is supported by competent and substantial evidence, and appellate courts review the sufficiency of evidence only to determine whether competent and substantial evidence exists in the record, not by weighing evidence or applying standards of reasonable doubt, which are exclusively jury functions.
“It is our view that the facts m this case did not warrant such a charge on the lesser included offenses, and refusal by the trial court to grant appellant's request for instructions to the jury on this principle of law was not error.”
Establishes that the trial court properly refused to instruct on lesser included offenses when facts do not warrant such instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittle was tried and convicted by jury of robbery. The trial court refused his request for jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of grand …
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 Moral Certainty cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery.
By his first point appellant urges that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request that the jury be charged on the lesser included offenses of grand larceny and petit larceny as required by F.S. Section 919.16, F.S.A., and in accordance with the interpretation of that statute by the Supreme Court in Jimenez v. State.1
It is our view that the facts m this case did not warrant such a charge on the lesser included offenses, and refusal by the trial court to grant appellant’s request for instructions to the jury on this principle of law was not error.2
Appellant’s remaining point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. After detailing with fidelity the essential items of evidence introduced during the trial, appellant urges that this proof falls short of establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. The factors of reasonable .doubt and moral certainty pertain only to the weight of the evidence. The function of resolving these factors lies exclusively with the jury, and not with the appellate court. Our proper function, in deciding whether the trial court erred in either refusing to direct a verdict for or granting a new trial to a convicted defendant, is to determine whether the-court’s rulings are supported by competent and substantial evidence as reflected by the-record and accord with the essential requirements of law.
The evidence adduced by appellant tended to establish his innocence, and if believed by the jury would have warranted a verdict of not guilty. By the same token, the evidence adduced by the State was wholly sufficient to establish defendant’s-guilt, and this is the evidence which the jury believed and on which it relied in rendering" its verdict of guilt. On this state of the-record we are unable to hold that the trial court committed error in the rulings of which appellant has complained.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and! CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jimenez v. State, 158 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1947)
- Hand v. State, 188 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Stewart v. State, 187 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)