BILLY GLENN ISLEY, 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.
Billy Glenn Isley appealed his first-degree murder conviction and life sentence, raising three procedural errors. The court found two errors: the trial court improperly denied a jury request for instructions without all parties present, and the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the legal consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The trial court properly denied the speedy trial discharge motion because Isley was not continuously available for trial during the relevant period while his competency was being determined. However, the trial court erred in responding to the jury's request for instructions without the presence and participation of the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecution. The trial court also erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the legal meaning and consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict when insanity was fairly raised as a defense.
[1] A defendant is not continuously available for trial, and thus not entitled to discharge under the Speedy Trial Rule, when their mental condition is being determined by th…
[2] It is prejudicial error for a trial judge to respond to a jury's request without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and the defendant's counsel being present and ha…
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“[I]t is prejudicial error for a trial judge to respond to a request from the jury without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and the defendant's counsel being present and having the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the action to be taken on the jury's request.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that all parties must be present when the trial court responds to jury requests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsley was charged with first-degree murder. On March 25, 1975, the trial court ordered a determination of Isley's mental condition; on May 2, 1975, af…
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 Speedy Trial Rule (Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191) cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.
Isley appeals from a judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of first degree murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. He raises three points on appeal.
Firstly, Isley contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge pursuant to the Speedy Trial Rule (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191). This Rule provides that a defendant shall be discharged if he has not been brought to trial within a specified time period during which he has been continuously available for trial. Isley was not brought to trial within the 180-day time period, however, he was not continuously available for trial during that period of time. On 25 March 1975, the trial court ordered-a determination of Isley’s mental condition. On 2 May 1975, after a hearing on the matter, the court entered an order of sanity. During that period of time, Isley’s competency to stand trial was being determined and thus he was unavailable for trial. The trial judge properly denied Isley’s motion for discharge.
Secondly, Isley contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. We agree. One of the grounds for the motion was that the trial court had denied the jury’s request for a copy of the jury instructions without Isley or his counsel being present or receiving notice. In Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977), decided while this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“. . . [I]t is prejudicial error for a trial judge to respond to a request from the jury without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and the defendant’s counsel being present and having the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the action to be taken on the jury’s request. This right to participate includes the right to place objections on record as well as the right to make full argument as to the reasons the jury’s request should or should not be honored.” Insofar as it is in conflict with the above holding, the Supreme Court overruled Kimmons v. State, 178 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), relied on by the trial judge in denying Isley’s motion for new trial.
The final point on appeal is whether the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. We think so. In Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1976), the Supreme Court expressly adopted the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F. 2d 725 (1957), which held that “. . . whenever . . . the defense of insanity is fairly raised, the trial judge shall instruct the jury as to the legal meaning of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity . . . .” The State contends that the Roberts decision merely holds that when a jury is fully instructed on the possible ramifications of a guilty verdict, the jury must also be instructed on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if the Supreme Court had intended its holding to be so limited, it would not have adopted Lyles and would not have expressly declined to limit its holding to the facts of the case.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zirkle v. State, 410 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…h in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(f). We must reject defendant’s contention that an order under the cited rule was required, because we otherwise determine that the defendant was not continuously available for trial. In Isley v. State, 354 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the rule was expressed that a defendant is unavailable for trial during such period of time as his mental condition and competence to stand trial are being determined. The Isley opinion does not reveal whether the request for th…
-
Williams v. State, 468 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…he would reread the instructions if so requested. The jury returned its guilty verdict without doing so. Counsel was not notified of the jury’s request until after the verdict was rendered. Appellant contends reversal is required by Isley v. State, 354 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The opinion in that case did agree “that the trial court erred in denying ... the jury’s request for a copy of the jury instructions without Isley or his counsel being present or receiving notice.” However, because a reversal fo…
-
State v. Guyton, 445 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ay “speedy trial” period, the defense never sought a continuance and was never unavailable for trial. The State relies upon Harley v. State, 412 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Zirkle v. State, 410 So. 2d 948 (Fla..3d DCA 1982); and Isley v. State, 354 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, these cases are not applicable as they presented delays in proceedings of a type clearly distinct from the facts of this case. AFFIRMED. ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur. . At the court’s discretion, upon a sho…
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
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)
- Archibald Lyles v. United States, 254 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1976)
- Kimmons v. State, 178 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)