Dudley v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1969,80-1969 |
| Citation | 405 So.2d 304 |
| Parties | Glen Allen DUDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Colodny & Fass, P. A., Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of appellant for grand theft after trial by jury. We reverse.
The two errors asserted by appellant upon which we base our decision involve jury instructions. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on appellant's asserted defense that he had taken possession of the property in question upon the mistaken but good faith belief that he was lawfully entitled to such property. In addition the trial court instructed the jury, over the appellant's objection, that it should receive the testimony of an accomplice with great caution. In this case the alleged accomplice was appellant's business associate who testified in appellant's behalf as to the good faith defense.
If the defendant asserts a valid legal defense and there is evidence presented to support the defense then the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury as to such defense upon request by the defendant. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1981). In Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) our sister court reversed a conviction under circumstances very similar to those involved herein, although the evidence in support of the good faith defense there appeared to be more substantial. Upon review of the record we believe that there was sufficient evidence presented to entitle the appellant to a jury instruction on his good faith defense. We also reject the state's contention which, while admitting the existence of some evidence as to the good faith defense, asserts that the standard instruction on the element of felonious intent was sufficient to cover such defense. In a sense, most theories of defense constitute negation of some element of the offense charged. However, this does not mean that an instruction on the required elements will necessarily satisfy the requirement that the jury be separately instructed on recognized theories of defense. It is one thing to inform the jury as to the state's obligation to prove each element of its case, but quite another to inform the jury that certain matters, if established, constitute a defense to the crime charged.
Our decision to reverse is also influenced by our conclusion that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State
...on the element of intent is insufficient to adequately cover the effect of a defendant's claim of good faith. See Dudley v. State, 405 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (finding standard instruction on felonious intent required for conviction of grand theft inadequate with respect to the d......
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State
...on the element of intent is insufficient to adequately cover the effect of a defendant's claim of good faith. See Dudley v. State, 405 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (finding standard instruction on felonious intent required for conviction of grand theft inadequate with respect to the ......
-
Gilbert v. State
...is not a legal defense then there is no error in refusing it. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.1981). See also Dudley v. State, 405 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), which requires a defense to be legally As to the substitute judgment instruction, appellant relies solely upon the case of Jo......
-
Morrison v. State, 87-1012
...testimony, or Morrison's defense of coercion, the trial court was obligated to submit the issue to the jury. See Dudley v. State, 405 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In addition, the state was allowed to introduce an edited statement given by Morrison to the police. Over Morrison's objection......