KENNETH ROLAND ADAMS, 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 reversed a robbery conviction because the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on larceny as a lesser included offense. This decision was based on a recent Florida Supreme Court ruling that mandates such instructions when requested by the defendant.
Yes, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery. Such a refusal constitutes prejudicial error.
“It was there held that a trial judge has a duty to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny when the defendant who requests such a charge is being tried for the offense of robbery.”
explains the controlling legal principle from the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Roland Adams was found guilty of robbery by a jury. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury o…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed from a-judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery as charged in the information. Only one point is before us on this appeal — whether the trial court erred in refusing to give appellant — defendant’s requested instruction on larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery.
This Court has previously issued decisions holding that the trial court does not have to instruct the jury on larceny when the evidence adduced at the trial is not reasonably susceptible of an inference that the stealing was accomplished without force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. Hand *495v. State, 188 So.2d 364 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966); Brown v. State, 191 So.2d 296 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966). Our decision in the Hand case was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in two cases consolidated for appeal, Hand v. State (Raulerson v. State), opinion filed May 17, 1967, 199 So. 2d 100. It was there held that a trial judge has a duty to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny when the defendant who requests such a charge is being tried for the offense of robbery.
In light of that decision it was prejudicial error for the lower court in the case at bar to refuse to instruct the jury on the offense of larceny. Therefore, we must reverse the judgment which was entered and remand for a new trial. Further proceeding in this cause must be in keeping with the views as expressed by the Supreme Court on the subject.
JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
WIGGINTON, C. J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).
It is with extreme reluctance that I concur in the foregoing opinion. My reluctance is not based upon the conclusion reached, but upon my conviction that the principle of law pronounced by the Supreme Court in the Hand and Raulerson cases, cited in the majority opinion, is bad law, unsupportable by logic or reason, and requires the giving of instructions in the trial of criminal cases which have no foundation in or relationship to the evidence adduced at the trial. Such procedure can have no effect but to mislead and confuse the jury in resolving the issues before it which inevitably will result in the frequent miscarriage of justice. Being bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions, however, we have no alternative but to follow them in this case.
WIGGINTON, Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
It is with extreme reluctance that I concur in the foregoing opinion. My reluctance is not based upon the conclusion reached, but upon my conviction that the principle of law pronounced by the Supreme Court in the Hand and Raulerson cases, cited in the majority opinion, is bad law, unsupportable by logic or reason, and requires the giving of instructions in the trial of criminal cases which have no foundation in or relationship to the evidence adduced at the trial. Such procedure can have no effect but to mislead and confuse the jury in resolving the issues before it which inevitably will result in the frequent miscarriage of justice. Being bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions, however, we have no alternative but to follow them in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)…s been proved beyond all doubt. However, the law gives him the right to have a jury verdict on the charge and we feel constrained to follow the law. Despite the protestations of some of our respected colleagues of the appellate bench—Adams v. State, 201 So. 2d 494, 495 (1st Fla.App. 1967)—a trial judge is required to instruct on necessarily included offenses because the law, particularly § 919.16, requires it. Actually, we think the requirement comports with logic, within the confines of our adversary system,…
-
Baumann v. Edward A. Lashins, Inc., 210 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So. 2d 494.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cole, 199 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1967)
- Hand v. State, 199 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1967)
- Hand v. State, 188 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)