JOHN L. RINGGO, 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 erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, as required by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
The defendant was found guilty after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court denied a request to instruct the jury on the consequen…
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.
GREEN, OLIVER L., Jr., Associate Judge.
It is an interesting aspect of our system of justice that a trial judge may err while observing the current directives controlling his conduct. Such is the situation in the instant case.
The trial below occurred on January 22, 1975. The defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity. The defendant requested an instruction as to the effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.460. The request was denied under the existing authority of McClure v. State, 104 So. 2d 601 (Fla.3d DCA 1958), which held that while the trial court may instruct the jury as to those consequences, a refusal to do so does not constitute error. The issue of the defendant Ringgo’s sanity was vigorously litigated below, resulting in verdicts unfavorable to him.
This same question has, since the date of the trial below, been decided differently in the case of Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1976), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that failure to thus instruct on the effects of Rule 3.460, constituted reversible error under the so-called “Lyles rule.” (Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F. 2d 725 (1957).) The ruling of McClure was thereby altered, and there is nothing in the Roberts opinion to suggest that its principle should be given only prospective effect.
The ruling in Roberts v. State applies in all respects to the issue herein being considered. We have also considered the remaining points on appeal, finding that the above stated matter constitutes the sole basis for reversal. We are not unmindful of the fact that no doubt exists as to the heinous conduct of the defendant. Neither are we unmindful that the jury had before it competent evidence bearing on the issue of insanity. Nevertheless, we are compelled to reverse on the authority of Roberts v. State, supra.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pouncy v. State, 353 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…reason of insanity as required by Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1976) and Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1977).1 See also Curtis v. State, 352 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), [*641] opinion filed November 22, 1977, and Ringgo v. State, 339 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d- DCA 1976). Appellant has raised additional points on appeal, among which is the contention that the trial judge erred in failing to grant defense counsel’s motions for protective order and to quash subpoenas issued by the State to depose…
-
Maguire v. State, 350 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…335 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1976), adopting the so called “Lyles” rule. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning and rationale of the Third District in Williams v. State, La.App., 346 So. 2d 554, opinion filed February 8, 1977; but see, Ringgo v. State, 339 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. AFFIRMED. MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.…
-
Williams v. State, 346 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…raised in the petition for rehearing, it would appear that on the basis set forth in this court’s original opinion that Roberts v. State, supra, should not be given retroactive effect, notwithstanding the holding to the contrary in Ringgo v. State, 339 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1976). Here, again, a request was made for a Lyles charge and the appeal challenged the denial thereof. Therefore, the petition for rehearing filed herein should be denied. Denied.…
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
- Archibald Lyles v. United States, 254 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1976)
- Leslie E. McCLURE (three cases) v. State, 104 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)