RICHARD HOOD, 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 Fourth District affirmed Hood's conviction, holding that trial court instructional and prosecutorial errors cannot be raised on appeal without contemporaneous objection unless they constitute fundamental error.
A defendant cannot raise as error on appeal trial court jury instructions or prosecutor's comments unless a request for instruction or timely objection was made at trial, unless the error is fundamental.
[1] A defendant must make a contemporaneous request for a jury instruction or timely objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial to preserve such issues for appell…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Hood was convicted at trial. On appeal, he raised for the first time various complaints about the trial court's jury instructions and the pros…
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 Fundamental Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and on the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Either a request for a jury instruction or an objection to the failure to give an instruction is necessary to raise error on appeal; likewise, allegedly improper arguments of a prosecuting officer will be reviewed only when an objection is timely made. Henry v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 78; Alford v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 479; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 829. By reason of not having proceeded in accordance with the foregoing and finding that the matters complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute fundamental error, the defendant cannot now raise as error the trial court’s instructions or the prosecutor’s comments. See State v. Bryan, Supreme Court of Florida Case, 287 So. 2d 73, opinion filed November 14, 1973; Williams v. State, Fla. 1971, 247 So. 2d 425; Willcox v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 298; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 602; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 829; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So. 2d 655. But see Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 94; Bagley v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So. 2d 400.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. State, 309 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…d assault. Having made no objection at the trial, and having affirmatively acquiesced, appellant cannot not now raise this question for the first time on appeal. Compare McPhee v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 254 So. 2d 406; Hood v. State, Fla.App. (4th), 287 So. 2d 110.…
-
Austin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…. Appellant did not object to the jury charge when it was given, but urges now that the instructions were faulty, and constituted fundamental error. Although an objection should have been made, and the lack of one can preclude review, Hood v. State, 287 So. 2d 110 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1971), if the error was fundamental, it will be reviewed notwithstanding, Smith v. State, 282 So. 2d 179 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Canada v. State, 139 So. 2d 753 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962) see Hood v…
-
Simpkin v. State, 363 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ine of cases stating the elementary principle that a request for an instruction or an objection to a failure to give an instruction is a prerequisite to raising error on appeal. See, e. g., Flagler v. State, 198 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1967); Hood v. State, 287 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Clements v. State, 284 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); and Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Also, I recognize that the Florida courts have on many occasions declined to apply the fundamental error rule to alleg…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1973)
- DeLAINE v. State, 262 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1972)
- Lelia Padgett Bagley v. State, 119 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1971)
- Whitehead v. State, 245 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Henry v. State, 277 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Reuben R. Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Urban Theron Jones v. State, 197 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Willcox v. State, 258 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Hollis Smith and Edmond J. Duhart v. State, 243 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)