JIMMY STEPHENS, 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.
Jimmy Stephens appeals his conviction for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's refusal to give jury instructions on assault as a lesser included offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that while an instruction on simple assault should have been given, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on simple assault as a lesser included offense, as the information alleged the robbery was committed 'by force, violence, assault or putting in fear,' which falls within the definition of simple assault. However, the error was harmless because overwhelming evidence supported the jury's robbery verdict.
[1] A jury instruction on simple assault is warranted when the information alleges that the defendant robbed a victim by force, violence, or putting in fear, and the evidence…
[2] A trial court may refuse to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses if the charging instrument does not contain allegations sufficient to support those offenses.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The information here alleged that the defendant 'did, by force, violence or putting Pearl Snyder in fear, feloniously rob, steal and take away' certain personal property. Simple assault, as pointed out in the District Court's decision, is defined as 'an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well founded fear of such violence being done.'”
Establishes the legal standard from Wilson case showing that simple assault is a lesser included offense when robbery allegations include force, violence, or putting in fear
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 27, 1971, a U-Save Super Market in Hillsborough County was robbed by a man who pointed a pistol at the assistant manager and demanded mone…
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 Buying Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Jimmy Stephens, was charged jointly with one Thomas William Bryan with robbery. The defendants were tried and convicted by a jury, adjudged guilty, and appellant Stephens was sentenced to forty years in the State penitentiary. Appellant appeals from the judgment and sentence entered against him.
On November 27, 1971, a U-Save Super Market in Hillsborough County was robbed by a man, later identified as appellant, who pointed a pistol at the assistant manager of the store and demanded the money. Appellant and co-defendant were apprehended shortly thereafter and charged with the crime.
During the trial at a conference on jury instructions appellant requested the trial court to give instructions to the jury on the lesser included offenses of grand larceny ; buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; assault and battery; simple assault; and conspiracy to commit robbery. The lower court gave instructions on necessarily included offenses of grand larceny and petit larceny but refused to give other requested instructions.
In State v. Wilson, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 45, the Supreme Court reversed Wilson v. State, Fla.App., 265 So.2d 411, a case very similar to the one under review. In determining that assault was a lesser included *332offense which may be included in the offense charged, the Supreme Court said:
“The information here alleged that the defendant 'did, by force, violence or putting Pearl Snyder in fear, feloniously rob, steal and take away’ certain personal property. Simple assault, as pointed out in the District Court’s decision, is defined as ‘an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well founded fear of such violence being done.’ The language in the information appears to be sufficient to fall within this definition of assault. The information, however, is not sufficient as regards the offenses-of aggravated assault (no allegation of assault with a deadly weapon) and assault and battery (no allegation of battery).”
As in the Wilson case, the information alleged that the defendants did “by force, violence, assault or putting in fear, rob, steal and take away from the person or custody of James Burnham,” cash of the value of more than $100. The record shows that appellant pointed a gun at the victim in such a manner as to threaten to do violence to his person. Therefore, the evidence supports the allegation of the lesser offense of assault. The information was not sufficient, however, as regards the other offenses, and the trial court was correct in refusing to give instructions as to them.
The error in failing to give an instruction on simple assault was harmless, however, in view of the overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Wilson, supra; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655; F.S., § 924.33 F.S.A. See also Henry v. State, this court’s case No. 72,797, 277 So.2d 78, opinion filed May 4, 1973. The victim and the store manager testified that appellant took money from them, and both positively identified appellant in court as the robber. The store manager also testified that when appellant ran out of the store he followed and saw him enter the passenger side of a Volkswagen, bearing license plate number 5D-259. This information was given to the police, the police spotted the vehicle, and a chase ensued. Appellant and the co-defendant left the vehicle, ran into the woods, and were later found hiding in weeds. In addition, the stolen money and other items were found in the abandoned Volkswagen.
We have examined the other point raised on this appeal and find it to be without merit.
The judgment appealed is, therefore,
Affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lomax v. State, 345 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977)…held the error to be harmless if, again, there exists overwhelming evidence that the defendant committed the crime charged. It is this theory that is embraced by the Second District Court of Appeal in the case sub judice. See also Stephens v. State, 279 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). The major flaw underlying this rationale, however, is that it revives the very problem ostensibly remedied in Hand; that is, the trial court is permitted to invade the province of the jury by making a unilateral determination th…
-
Nera Mims v. State, 342 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…herein that Mims struck the victim, the trial judge was eminently correct in refusing to instruct the jury on the crime of assault and battery as a lesser included offense of robbery. See State v. Wilson, 276 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1973); Stephens v. State, 279 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Affirmed.…
-
Abreau v. State, 347 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…o. 2d 15 (Fla.1972); State v. Diggs, 336 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Lomax v. State, 322 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Sherman v. State, 307 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Spigner v. State, 304 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stephens v. State, 279 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Logan v. State, 264 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeLAINE v. State, 262 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Wilson, 276 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1973)
- Henry v. State, 277 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Wilson v. State, 265 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)