SAMUEL PRICE MOORE, 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.
Moore was convicted of robbery after a jury trial, but the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on certain lesser included offenses (assault with intent to commit robbery, grand larceny, and assault with intent to commit grand larceny) that were supported by the evidence and the charging information. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to give instructions on the requested lesser included offenses. Under State v. Terry and Brown v. State, instructions must be given on all Brown category III and IV offenses—lesser included offenses necessarily included in the charged offense or those that may or may not be included depending on the evidence and charging document. The assault charges were category IV offenses supported by both the robbery information and the evidence.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses that are necessarily included in the offense charged or may be included…
[2] Assault charges are considered Brown category IV lesser included offenses of robbery.
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 intelligence“Instructions should be given on all Brown category III and IV offenses. These are lesser included offenses which are necessarily included in the offense charged and those which may be or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.”
Establishes the mandatory rule for when lesser included offense instructions must be given under Brown v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was charged with robbery. He requested jury instructions on several lesser included offenses: assault with intent to commit robbery, grand larce…
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 Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Moore was charged with robbery. He requested that the jury be instructed upon the lesser included offenses of assault with intent to commit robbery, grand larceny, assault with intent to commit grand larceny, petit larceny and assault with intent to commit petit larceny. The court gave instructions on robbery, grand larceny, petit larceny and assault. The jury found appellant guilty of robbery. Appellant alleges that the refusal to grant the requested instructions was reversible error. On the authority of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Terry, 336 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1976), we are compelled to agree. In Terry the court mandated strict compliance with Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968). Instructions should be given on all Brown category III and IV offenses. These are lesser included offenses which are necessarily included in the offense charged and those which may be or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.
The assault charges are Brown category IV offenses.1 In this case the robbery information and evidence supported the assault instructions. The trial court thus committed reversible error in failing to give the requested instructions. Hammer v. State, 343 So. 2d 856, (Fla. 1st DCA opinion filed December 9, 1976); Silvestri v. State, 332 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Lightfoot v. State, 331 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Young v. State, 330 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
We have considered appellant’s other point on appeal and found it without merit.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur. . In Lomax v. State, 322 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), this court held that in light of the supreme court’s decision in State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1975), assault with intent to commit robbery was a category IV lesser included offense of robbery. Prior to its decision in State v. White, supra, the supreme court had noted that assault was a category III lesser included offense of robbery. Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 352 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…und sufficient ev [*530] idence to instruct the jury on the major offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, he should have instructed the jury on the necessarily included offense of bare assault.” See also Moore v. State, 341 So. 2d 814 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), where our Second District followed Terry and said the trial judge must charge assault with intent to commit robbery in a robbery case. We have not overlooked Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975), but find the dissent more…
-
Jackson v. State, 355 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…apon) carried a firearm, to-wit: A PISTOL, in violation of 812.13 Florida Statutes, contrary to the . . . ” This pleading coupled with the evidence introduced at trial unquestionably supported the requested assault instructions. Cf. Moore v. State, 341 So. 2d 814 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We reverse Jackson’s robbery conviction and sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial. See Young v. State, 330 So. 2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Lawson v. State, 360 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…e find that there is one other point which we must discuss. At the second trial the court refused a defense request that it instruct the jury on assault with intent to commit petit larceny. Appellant argues that this was error citing Moore v. State, 341 So. 2d 814 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). While we agree with appellant that Moore would seem to require an instruction on assault with intent to commit petit larceny in the present case, we recede from the holding of Moore insofar as it discusses that type of assault. A…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Terry, 336 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1975)
- Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)
- Silvestri v. State, 332 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Lightfoot v. State, 331 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Lomax v. State, 322 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Hammer v. State, 343 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Young v. State, 330 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)