THOMAS MALCOLM LOWE, 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.
Appellant's conviction for breaking and entering an automobile with intent to commit larceny was affirmed where the trial court's refusal to give an attempt instruction was not reviewable due to an ambiguous record regarding which offense the attempt charge was requested for.
A trial court's refusal to instruct on attempt is not reviewable when the record does not clearly indicate whether the attempt instruction was requested for the offense of conviction or the offense of acquittal.
[1] A trial court's refusal to instruct on attempt is not reviewable when the record ambiguously fails to indicate whether the attempt instruction was requested for the offen…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of breaking and entering an automobile with intent to commit larceny under § 810.051, F.S. 1973, and simultaneously acquitted …
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering an automobile with intent to commit larceny, in violation of § 810.051, F.S. 1973. He was simultaneously acquitted of charges in a second count that, in violation of § 814.03, F.S.1973, he willfully and without authority took possession of and took away the same automobile which belonged to another. Error is assigned in the trial court’s refusal “to give the jury Appellant’s requested instruction on attempt to commit the offenses charged” and appellate counsel for appellant argues that the trial court offended Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968) in that ruling. We do not reach the question of whether, in view of other jury charges given, the failure to charge on attempt was harmless error [Spigner v. State, 304 So. 2d 496 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974)] because this record contains no indication that trial counsel requested a charge on the offense of attempt to commit the crime of which appellant was convicted. For aught that appears, the request was for a charge on attempt to commit the offense of which appellant was acquitted. We will not determine substantial questions of law on so ambiguous a record. We have likewise considered appellant’s other points on appeal.
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Sutton v. State, 304 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)