Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court responded to a jury question during deliberations by providing a partial set of written instructions. According to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a), in non-capital cases, if any jury instructions are taken to the jury room, all instructions must be taken. The court declined to consider this issue as the Appellant did not object during the trial, failing to preserve it for appeal. The omission of the full set of instructions did not constitute a fundamental error. The court affirmed the Appellant’s conviction for two counts of resisting arrest with violence, citing precedent where similar circumstances were adjudicated. The court certified a conflict with a decision from another district court, indicating differing legal interpretations. Judges Stone, Klein, and Owen concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Conflict Between District Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court acknowledged a conflict with a decision from another district court, indicating diverging legal interpretations on the issue.
Reasoning: The court certified a conflict with a decision from another district court, indicating differing legal interpretations.
Fundamental Error and Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the omission of the full set of instructions did not amount to a fundamental error that would warrant overturning the conviction.
Reasoning: The omission of the full set of instructions did not constitute a fundamental error.
Jury Instructions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court provided only a partial set of written instructions to the jury during deliberations, which did not comply with the requirement that all instructions must be taken to the jury room.
Reasoning: According to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.400(a), in non-capital cases, if any jury instructions are taken to the jury room, all instructions must be taken.
Precedent and Conviction Affirmationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the Appellant's conviction for resisting arrest with violence based on existing legal precedent.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the Appellant’s conviction for two counts of resisting arrest with violence, citing precedent where similar circumstances were adjudicated.
Preservation of Issues for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court refused to consider the issue of incomplete jury instructions because the Appellant did not raise an objection during the trial, thus failing to preserve the issue for appeal.
Reasoning: The court declined to consider this issue as the Appellant did not object during the trial, failing to preserve it for appeal.