STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT J. WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that trial judges have a mandatory duty to instruct juries on lesser included offenses, even when a defendant objects. The court reversed the District Court of Appeal's decision that had permitted defendants to object to such instructions and reinstated the conviction for assault with intent to commit rape.
A trial judge has a mandatory duty to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses and may not be prevented from doing so by a defendant's objection. A defendant cannot insist on being tried only for the crimes set forth in the charging instrument when lesser included offenses are necessarily included in the charge.
[1] A trial judge is required to instruct the jury on necessarily included offenses when the law mandates such instructions.
[2] A defendant's objection to jury instructions on lesser included offenses does not override a statutory mandate for the court to charge the jury on such offenses.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial judge is required to instruct on necessarily included offenses because the law, particularly § 919.-16, requires it”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the trial judge's duty to instruct on lesser included offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was indicted and tried for rape. During trial, he objected to jury instructions on lesser included offenses (assault with intent to commit …
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 Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at *902247 So.2d 743. We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. and Rule 4.5(c) (6) of the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., because that decision conflicts wtih Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377.
Respondent was indicted and tried for the crime of rape. At a conference on jury instructions held during the trial, he objected to the giving of any instructions on lesser included offenses. The trial judge informed Respondent that the objection would not be waived if he failed to make it in open court. The jury was instructed on the lesser included offenses of assault with intent to commit rape, assault and battery, and simple assault. He was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. The District Court of Appeal, First District, reversed. That court held that a defendant may object to the giving of lesser included offense charges and may insist that he be tried only for the crimes set forth in the charging instrument.
The rule established by the District Court comports with logic and fairness. By not objecting to a lesser included offense instruction, a defendant would waive any contention that he was not given notice that the jury could convict him for lesser included offenses. When he did object, the State would be forced to have its case stand or fall on whether the jury found the defendant guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment or information. However, although it may have set forth the better rule, the District Court’s holding is not permitted under F.S. Section 919.16, F.S.A.* and our interpretation of that statute in Brown v. State, supra.
The statute provides:
“Upon an indictment or information for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit such offense, if such attempt is an offense, or convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The court shall charge the jury in this regard!’ (Emphasis supplied.)
In Brown we held the “shall” mandatory, saying, “a trial judge is required to instruct on necessarily included offenses because the law, particularly § 919.-16, requires it.” Brown v. State, supra, at 382. The trial judge in the instant case, therefore, properly instructed the jury as to lesser included offenses necessarily included in the crime of rape, and the jury acted within its province in returning a verdict of guilty of a lesser included offense.
In addition to finding the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to lesser included offenses, the District Court in this case concluded “the trial judge unduly limited defendant in proffering witnesses as to his character.” The court said that if it had not concluded that he “was entitled to be discharged under the first point raised, we would unhesitatingly direct that a new trial be granted for the reason that the trial judge unduly restricted defendant in calling witnesses to testify as to his reputation.” The defendant has now been given notice that the jury can find him guilty of a lesser included offense; he should prepare his defense accordingly when he is retried.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, discharging Respondent is quashed and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, and McCAIN, JJ-, concur.
DEKLE, J., concurs in judgment only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)…crimes are embodied within the divisions of Murder in the First Degree and Murder in the Second Degree in order to properly instruct a jury and conduct a trial under the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1972).” In the case of State v. Sheppard, the questions certified are: “Whether the provisions of Florida Statutes 782.04, 775.082 and 921.141 prescribing the penalties for felonies and misdemeanors, the definitions of the degrees of murder a…
-
Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983)…he failed to give to the jury the mandatory instructions on the necessarily included lesser offenses of first-degree murder, burglary, and robbery. Appellant argues that our holdings in Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968), State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1972), and Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1973), mandate a trial judge to give jury instructions on all necessarily included lesser offenses. He maintains that the trial judge did not have the discretion to grant defense counsel’s request…
-
State v. Terry, 336 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1976)…pp. 1st 1975); Howard v. State, 316 So. 2d 654 (Fla. App. 3rd 1975); Kelsey v. State, 317 So. 2d 445 (Fla.App. 1st 1975) and Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla.App. 3rd 1975). . E. g., Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1971); State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1972); State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1972); Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1973); State v. Wilson, 276 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1973).…
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Washington v. State, 247 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)