JAMES A. RISEBROUGH, 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 held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the essential element of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle constituted reversible error.
The defendant was convicted of auto theft, a felony, and appealed, arguing the jury instructions were incomplete. The trial court instructed on the fe…
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 Intent To Permanently Deprive cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant, James A. Rise-brough, was charged by an amended information with a felony, auto theft, in violation of Section 814.03(1), Florida Statutes 1973. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged. The trial court entered judgment accordingly, and sentenced the defendant. It is from this judgment and sentence that the defendant appeals.
The defendant here contends that the trial court erred in omitting from its instructions to the jury an essential element of the crime charged. We must agree.
The trial court instructed the jury on the felony charged, auto theft, and on the lesser included offense of unauthorized temporary use of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor under Section 814.04, Florida Statutes 1973. However, nowhere in the instructions as given to the jury did the trial court indicate that to be guilty of auto theft under Section 814.03(1), the defendant must have intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. Intent of the defendant to permanently deprive the owner of the motor vehicle is a material element of auto theft, and the presence of such intent is the factor distinguishing the felony, auto theft, from the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized temporary use of a motor vehicle. The failure of the trial court to instruct .the jury on the issue of intent, at least where the defendant, as here, presented evidence at trial denying the felonious nature of the taking, constitutes reversible, error. See Austin v. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla.App.1975).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
CROSS, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McFARLAND v. State, 368 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…acted only as a conduit on instructions from his brother who was running the business. The intent of the defendant to permanently deprive the owner of the motor vehicles is without question a material element of an auto theft. Risebrough v. State, 313 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). It seems clear that defendant intended to obtain possession of the automobiles but we believe the evidence to have been insufficient on the issue of whether the defendant knew the drafts were worthless at the time he obtained po…
-
G. A. D. v. State, 340 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…88 So. 623 (1921); Davis v. State, 92 Fla. 209, 109 So. 301 (1926); Bowles v. State, 153 Fla. 219,14 So. 2d 269 (1943); Caves v. State, 302 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Austin v. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Risebrough v. State, 313 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). The appellant also urges that the only evidence adduced was merely flight by him from the scene and that this, in and of itself, will not support…
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)