JAMES LLOYD SPRINKLE, JR., 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.
This case involves an appeal from a robbery conviction where the appellant argued the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny. The appellate court reversed the conviction, following a Florida Supreme Court ruling that such instructions are required when supported by the evidence.
Yes, the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny. The appellate court followed the precedent set by the Florida Supreme Court, which mandates such instructions when the evidence supports a conviction for the lesser offense.
“This Court heretofore handed down its decisions in Hand v. State and Raulerson v. State and in which we held that Florida Statutes 919.16, F.S.A. did not mandatorily require the giving of a charge on larceny in a robbery trial where the evidence of the particular case would not support a conviction of the said lesser offense.”
Describes the court's prior position on the issue.
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 convicted of robbery. The sole issue on appeal was the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of …
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 Mandatory Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery.
The only point on appeal in this case concerns the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny.
This Court heretofore handed down its decisions in Hand v. State and Raulerson v. State1 in which we held that Florida *49Statutes 919.16, F.S.A. did not mandatorily require the giving of a charge on larceny in a robbery trial where the evidence of the particular case would not support a conviction of the said lesser offense. We were reversed by the Florida Supreme Court in the Hand and Raulerson case, supra, and we therefore have no alternative except to accept the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on the matter as the law of this state until changed or modified. Therefore said case is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. State, 275 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…nding that defendants’ requests were properly made and should have been granted under the decision and for the reasons set forth in Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 377, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Sprinkle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 48; King v. State, Fla.1957, 104 So. 2d 730; see also F. S. Section 833.05, F.S.A. Reversed. REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cole, 199 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1967)
- Hand v. State, 199 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1967)