JAMES RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Affirmed.
MAGER, J., arid MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial because of the failure of the trial court to charge the jury upon the lesser included offenses.
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.510, 33 F.S.A., provides:
“Rule 3.510 Conviction of Attempt; Lesser Included Offense
“Upon an indictment, information or affidavit on. which the defendant is tried for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit such offense if such attempt is an offense, or may convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The Court shall charge the jury in this regard." (Emphasis added.)
The language is mandatory. Even where a defendant objects to the giving of lesser included offenses, the trial court is required to charge as to them. The majority decision is in direct conflict with State v. Washington, Fla.1972, 268 So.2d 901.
It is my further view that refusal of pre-trial discovery to appellants was error.
WALDEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial because of the failure of the trial court to charge the jury upon the lesser included offenses.
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.510, 33 F.S.A., provides:
“Rule 3.510 Conviction of Attempt; Lesser Included Offense
“Upon an indictment, information or affidavit on. which the defendant is tried for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit such offense if such attempt is an offense, or may convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The Court shall charge the jury in this regard." (Emphasis added.)
The language is mandatory. Even where a defendant objects to the giving of lesser included offenses, the trial court is required to charge as to them. The majority decision is in direct conflict with State v. Washington, Fla.1972, 268 So. 2d 901.
It is my further view that refusal of pre-trial discovery to appellants was error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daytona Dev. Corp. v. Bergquist, 308 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…e to aid this court in reaching its decision. The various aspects of condominium law are governed by Chapter 711, Florida Statutes, known as the “condominium act”, and the several provisions of that act must be read in pari materai. Vinik v. Taylor, 270 So. 2d 413 (Fla.App. 4th 1972). Section 711.03(13), Florida Statutes, defines a unit as “. . . a part of the condominium which property is to be subject to private ownership.” Section 711.-03(4) defines common elements as “. . . the portions of the condominiu…
-
McCUTCHEON v. State, 274 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 270 So. 2d 413. ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Miami Atl. Dev. Corp. v. TAX Assessor, 41 Fla. Supp. 148 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1974)…1) Defendants’ motions are granted. (2) Plaintiff’s motion is denied. (3) The temporary injunction issued March 26; 1974, is dissolved and the plaintiff shall take nothing by its claim and shall go hence without day. . The court in Vinik v. Taylor, 270 So. 2d 413, 417 (4th D.C.A. Fla. 1972) stated in regard to the Honorable Russell McCaughan that he was “one of the authors of Chapter 711, supra, and [he is] one of the acknowledged authorities in the field of condominium law,.. . In regard to the tax lien wh…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1972)