Harris v. State, 3D05-1446.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-1446.,3D05-1446. |
| Citation | 937 So.2d 211 |
| Parties | Robert Lewis HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Maria T. Armas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GREEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED
The motion for rehearing is denied. We withdraw our June 21, 2006 opinion and substitute the following in its place. Robert Lewis Harris appeals his conviction, asserting that the trial court committed fundamental error when it included the conjunction "and/or" in the jury instruction between his name and that of a co-defendant. We reverse, finding that the use of the "and/or" conjunction in the instruction resulted in fundamental error based on the totality of the circumstances.
The State charged Harris and his co-defendant with second degree murder arising from a bar room brawl that ultimately led to the victim's death. The jury returned a guilty verdict of second degree murder as to Harris and the co-defendant.
The pertinent instruction on second degree murder read as follows:
To prove the crime of second degree murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. [The victim] is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [the co-defendant] and/or Robert Lewis Harris.
3. There was an unlawful killing of [the victim] by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
The trial court further instructed the jury that it had to consider each defendant separately and the evidence applicable to each one separately. The parties did not object to the jury instructions as given.
Harris argues that a new trial is warranted because the use of "and/or" in the jury instruction may have misled the jury, since it could have based his conviction solely on the acts of his co-defendant. We agree.
Courts previously have considered this claimed error fundamental based on the totality of the circumstances. See Dorsett v. McRay, 901 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 895 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cabrera v. State, 890 So.2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Concepcion v. State, 857 So.2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Williams v. State, 774 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). These cases uniformly hold that including the "and/or" conjunction between the names of defendants in the instruction results in fundamental error because it creates a situation in which the "jury may have convicted the [defendant] based solely upon a finding that [the] codefendant's conduct satisfied an element of the offenses." See, e.g., Davis, 895 So.2d at 1196. Based upon the instruction the trial judge gave in this case, the jury could have found Harris guilty of second degree murder if it found that the criminal act of his co-defendant caused the victim's death.
The State argues that any error was harmless because of the additional jury instruction that required the jury to consider each defendant separately and the evidence applicable to each one separately. We disagree with this position. The State in Zeno v. State, 910 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), argued that no fundamental error arose from the jury instruction because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garzon v. State
...instructions, addressing nonfundamental error); Davis, 922 So.2d 279 (use of "and/or" with principals instruction); Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (use of "and/or" with codefendants instruction); Martinez v. State, 933 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (use of "and/or" in und......
-
Phillips v. State
...455 (Fla. 2007); see also Martinez v. State, 933 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review granted, 959 So.2d 717 (Fla.2007); Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 942 So.2d 413 (Fla. 2006); Pratt v. State, 429 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA Although not an exhaustive list, t......
-
Salas v. State
...of the particular case before determining that use of "and/or" rose to the level of fundamental error. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 967 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Davis, 804 So.2d at For instance, in Casimir v. McDonough, 932 So.2d 471 (Fl......
-
Santos v. State
...had the intent, under the principals instruction, for the kidnapping to have occurred. 939 So.2d at 289; see also Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding, based on a totality of the circumstances approach, that the "and/or" jury instruction was fundamental error), review ......
-
Avoiding fundamentally erroneous jury instructions: pointers for counsel in criminal trials and appeals.
...one forcible felony. In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 947 So. 2d 1159, 1159 (Fla. 2007). (31) See Harris v. State, 937 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2006) (finding use of "and/or" permitted jury to base defendant's conviction solely on co-defendant's acts); Tersigni v.......