Arboleda v. State, 94-582
| Decision Date | 26 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-582,94-582 |
| Citation | 645 So.2d 48 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2267 Jose ARBOLEDA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Neil Rose, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Consuelo Maingot, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Jose Arboleda appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. He alleges as error the trial court's failure to give part four of the standard jury instruction dealing with trafficking. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Evidence at trial showed that customs inspectors had intercepted a package from Colombia that contained a marble pedestal with 666.9 grams of cocaine concealed inside. Law enforcement officers set up a controlled delivery, and persuaded the defendant to come pick up the package. There was conflicting testimony about whether the defendant, when placing the package in his car, would have been able to see the cocaine inside the pedestal. At trial, the defendant testified that he did not know there was cocaine in the package, that he was picking up the package only as a favor for his sister in Colombia, and that the pedestal was intended as a birthday present for the mother of his sister's friend.
Over both prosecution and defense objections, the trial court refused to give the fourth part of the standard jury instruction for trafficking in cocaine. Part four was promulgated by the Supreme Court after the legislature amended section 983.12, Florida Statutes (1987). It specifies that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to sell, purchase, manufacture, deliver, bring into Florida or possess the specific substance alleged. Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 233. Instead, the trial court gave the jury an instruction based on State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (Fla.1987), that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed cocaine.
The State argues on appeal that the elements of the crime were sufficiently covered by the first three parts of the standard jury instruction plus the Dominguez instruction on knowledge, and that the additional instruction would have only confused the jury. The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to give part four of the standard jury instruction.
Failure to give a standard jury instruction is reversible error when the omitted standard jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radler v. State, No. 4D18-1737
...goes to the heart of the defendant's case." Hosnedl v. State , 126 So. 3d 400, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Arboleda v. State , 645 So. 2d 48, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ). Although we could find no case law that specifically addresses the standard to be applied in assessing state of mind in......
-
Hosnedl v. State
...is reversible error when the omitted standard jury instruction goes to the heart of the defendant's case.” Arboleda v. State, 645 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury on justifiable use of deadly force, and declined to instruct the jury o......
-
Forshee v. State, 96-3093
...use of deadly force, where, as here, defendant was not charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Arboleda v. State, 645 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Second, the trial court erred in permitting the state to continue to cro......
-
Cunningham v. State, 95-2751
...We find that the jury instructions given adequately covered the issue addressed in the requested instructions. In Arboleda v. State, 645 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this court addressed factual circumstance very similar to those in the instant case. There the defendant picked up a package ......