JIMMY S. BUNN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jimmy Bunn appealed his conviction for burglary and grand larceny, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on how to evaluate his inculpatory statements. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that when the prosecution introduces an accused's inculpatory statements, the jury must receive adequate instructions on how to evaluate the weight and credibility of such statements.
The trial court's failure to provide the jury with an instruction on how to evaluate the defendant's inculpatory statements constituted reversible error. When an accused's inculpatory statement is introduced into evidence, the jury is entitled to have adequate instructions covering the elements by which to evaluate the statement's credibility and weight.
[1] A defendant is entitled to have the jury consider the circumstances under which an inculpatory statement was made to determine the weight to be given to that statement.
[2] A trial court must provide adequate instructions to the jury for evaluating the weight or lack of weight to be given to an accused's inculpatory statement.
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“Where, as here, the prosecution introduces an inculpatory statement of an accused into evidence, the accused is entitled to have the jury consider the circumstances under which the statement was given to determine the weight or lack of weight to be given to the statement.”
Establishes the fundamental right of a defendant to have the jury properly instructed on evaluating inculpatory statements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny. The prosecution introduced inculpatory statements made by the appellant as eviden…
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.
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict on the charges of burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny. We reverse.
Among the points raised by appellant on appeal, his second point is disposi-tive of this appeal. In this point, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as required by Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.390, on the manner in which certain of his admissions were to be evaluated and upon the weight to be attributed to such admissions, thereby denying him a fair trial.
Where, as here, the prosecution introduces an inculpatory statement of an accused into evidence, the accused is entitled to have the jury consider the circumstances under which the statement was given to determine the weight or lack of weight to be given to the statement. Normally, the jury must be provided with adequate instructions with which to evaluate the statement. See, e. g., Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373 (1919); Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 588 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); and Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.13(i). Here, appellant made no specific request for such a charge at the charge conference, nor was such a charge given when the jury was charged. However, after the jury was charged and prior to the time it retired, appellant objected to the lack of such a charge and requested that one be given. His objection was overruled and the request denied.
Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) requires that the presiding judge shall charge the jury only upon the law of the case, i. e., a charge must be given which covers substantially the elements which the jury should evaluate in considering the credibility to be accorded to the statement. See Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1961). Although we feel that the better practice would have been for appellant to have made a request for a specific instruction at the time of the charge conference, the failure of the trial court, pursuant to appellant’s request for such an instruction prior to the time the jury retired, to give either the Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.13(i) or another appropriate instruction constituted reversible error. See, e. g., Harrison v. State, 149 Fla. 365, 5 So. 2d 703 (1942); Taylor v. State, 320 So. 2d 428 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(a).
In the light of this determination, calling for reversal of the judgment and sentence appeal, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other points raised by appellant on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)…. State, 91 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1956); Williams v. State, 156 Fla. 300, 22 So. 2d 821 (1945); Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479 (1925); Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373 (1919); Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198 (1910); Bunn v. State, 363 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979); Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 372 So. 2d 64 (Fla.1979). It is conceivable that a confession, freely and voluntarily given and therefore admissible…
-
Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1981)…ited by appellant and which concerned the propriety of jury instructions on degrees of homicide, simply cited Harrison as an example of how failure to advise the jury on the weight to be given a confession could be fundamental error. Bunn v. State, 363 So. 2d 16 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979), addressed the propriety of a trial court’s refusal to give the jury instructions regarding evaluation of certain admissions which the defendant had made. The dis [*898] trict court reverse…
-
Williams v. State, 597 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…attorney to have requested the instruction at the time of the charge conference, the failure of the trial court to honor the request for the appropriate instruction prior to the time the jury retired constituted reversible error. Cf. Bunn v. State, 363 So. 2d 16 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) (defendant entitled to instruction on evaluation of credibility of inculpatory statement introduced by the prosecution even though request for the instruction was after the jury was charged and before the jury retired), cert. denie…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672 (Fla. 1919)
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Harrison v. State, 5 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1942)
- Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Taylor v. State, 320 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)