ALEXANDER RAYNER, 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 court affirmed the conviction of Alexander Rayner, holding that he could not assign as error the trial court's failure to instruct on lesser included offenses because he failed to object at trial as required by statute.
Rayner has no standing to raise the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses because he failed to object at trial as required by F.S. § 918.10(4) and Rule 6.7(g).
[1] A party cannot assign as error the failure to give a jury instruction unless an objection was made at trial, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for…
[2] A statute requiring a court to charge the jury on lesser included offenses is mandatory.
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 intelligenceRayner requested the trial judge not to give instructions on lesser included offenses, and the judge complied. The Supreme Court quashed a prior appel…
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
PER CURIAM.
The prior opinion of this court affirming the judgment of the lower court, reported in 264 So. 2d 74, was quashed by the Supreme Court in 273 So. 2d 759.
In the lower court Rayner requested the trial judge not to give instructions on lesser included offenses, and the trial judge complied with his request. On appeal this court affirmed the judgment. In quashing our decision the Supreme Court adhered to its decision in State v. Washington, Fla.1972, 268 So. 2d 901, and held that under F.S. § 919.16 F.S.A. [now superseded by Rule 3.-150 RCrP, 33 F.S.A.] the requirement that the court “shall charge the jury” was mandatory.
In remanding the cause to us the Supreme Court said:
“[B]ecause it appears that there may he other grounds on the basis of which the conviction could be sustained,1 the cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
F.S. Section 918.10(4) F.S.A., which was in effect when Rayner was tried and convicted, provided:
“No party may assign as error or grounds of appeal the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict stating distinctly the matter to which he objects, and the grounds of his objection.”
Rayner failed to meet the requirements of F.S. § 918.10(4) F.S.A. and Rule 6.7(g) F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and therefore has no standing to raise the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses. See Williams v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 13.
The judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur. “1. Specifically, the District Court may wish to consider the applicability of Fla.Stat. § 918.10(4) and/or F.A.R. 6.7(g), both relating to the necessity of objections at the trial level before errors may be asserted on appeal. In this regard, we note that Fla. Stat. § 918.10(4) was repealed by Chapter 70-339, Laws of Florida, which took effect some months after defendant’s robbery conviction.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 324 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…rge, or any objection in that connection to the charges given by the court. Thereby, under Rule 3.390(d) RCrP, the contention on appeal of error for refusal to give such requested charge [*116] is not presentable here. Rayner v. State, Fla.App.1973, 286 So. 2d 604; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 737. Moreover the record reveals that the jury charges given by the court included and adequately covered that element of intent. Refusal to give a requested charge when it is covered by charges given has…
-
Jones v. State, 358 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…into charging the jury on possession of an hallucinogenic drug which was not a lesser included offense of the information charging the appellant with sale of an hallucinogenic drug. On remand from the Supreme Court, the appellant in Rayner v. State, 286 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) failed to object to the court’s failure to instruct on any lesser included offenses (in fact, requested the court not to so instruct), and was held to have waived his right to complain. In cases where an appellant has entered plea…
-
Williams v. State, 346 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…us, where the defendant herein failed to request a “Lyles” instruction or to object to the trial court’s failure to give such a charge, he has no standing to raise the question on appeal. Williams v. State, 285 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973); Rayner v. State, 286 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1973); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d). Furthermore, even if Roberts v. State, supra, does hold it mandatory for the trial court to sua sponte give a charge on the “Lyles” rule [a holding we clearly reject herein], that case would not be app…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1972)
- Williams v. State, 285 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1973)
- Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1973)
- Rayner v. State, 264 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)