Curry v. State
| Decision Date | 24 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D14–2052.,5D14–2052. |
| Citation | 169 So.3d 1258 |
| Parties | Farley Bernard CURRY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Farley Curry appeals his convictions for kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily harm or terrorize with a firearm, burglary of a conveyance with a battery with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, and grand theft of a firearm. He argues that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt constituted fundamental error. We agree and reverse.
Curry's trial was not simple: numerous charges were involved, along with accompanying lesser-included offenses; Curry raised a multitude of defenses, some of which were inconsistent; and special findings were required. Issues of competency also arose, both in terms of Curry's capacity to proceed and the professional competency of Curry's chosen counsel, who failed to have her client examined by an expert to support Curry's insanity defense. Somehow, despite the presence of an experienced and well-considered trial judge, standard jury instruction 3.7—including its instruction on reasonable doubt—was omitted from the jury instructions.1 This omission was missed by the assistant state attorney, Curry's counsel, and the trial judge.
Conceding that the omission was error, the State argues that the error was not fundamental and urges us to affirm. We can think of little more fundamental in a criminal trial than instructing the jury on the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 291, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ( ); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320 n. 14, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citing Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972) ) ( that failure to instruct jury on reasonable doubt standard cannot be harmless).
The State's argument is premised upon the fact that at the beginning of voir dire, the trial judge explained the defendant's presumption of innocence, explained that the State would bear the burden of proving its allegations, and read the definition of reasonable doubt to the prospective jurors. Both the State and the defense followed up with additional questions on the reasonable doubt standard. This same argument was appropriately rejected in Cavagnaro v. State, 117 So.3d 1111, 1113–14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
The trial judge in this case was far more thorough in defining reasonable doubt than the trial judge in Cavagnaro. Still, we agree that discussing the concept generically with a panel of prospective jurors is far different from instructing the actual jury following the presentation of the evidence and argument of counsel.2
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps v. State
...260 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (following Cavagnaro ); Usry v. State, 284 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (same); Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (same); Burnette v. State, 103 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (same). Given the existence of our 2012 decision in Cavagnar......
- Morse v. State, 5D14–2652.
-
Usry v. State, Case No. 2D18-4435
...fundamental error. We accept the State's concession and accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial. See Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258, 1259-60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for new trial because the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt const......
-
Willis v. State
...for postconviction relief.1 This is not the first time that this Court has criticized Sweet for her performance. See Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).2 Additionally, the evidence against Willis was ...
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...doubt when instructing the jury, which was not caught by the court or either of the attorneys, was fundamental error. Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) Trial court erred in giving the hallucinations jury instruction for a crime that was allegedly committed in 2009—the inst......
-
Appeals
...doubt when instructing the jury, which was not caught by the court or either of the attorneys, was fundamental error. Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) A trial court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of a statute is a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo. ......