Hubbard v. State, 5D98-3261.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D98-3261.,5D98-3261. |
| Citation | 751 So.2d 771 |
| Parties | Tauris HUBBARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Following the issuance of our decision in this case, Mr. Hubbard filed a motion for rehearing.As authority for the motion, Mr. Hubbard cited to Ward v. State,655 So.2d 1290(Fla. 5th DCA1995).On the authority of Wardwe grant rehearing, withdraw our previous decision, and substitute the following in its place.
Mr. Hubbard was charged with committing aggravated child abuse1 upon his girlfriend's two-year-old son.The matter went to trial and the jury found Mr. Hubbard guilty as charged.He contends, for the first time on appeal, that he is entitled to receive a new trial because the trial court issued improper jury instructions on the charged offense of aggravated child abuse and the lesser included offense of child abuse.Our review of the record reveals that the trial court's instructions were erroneous.
The issuance of "an incomplete and inaccurate instruction on the law is fundamental error where the error relates to the elements of the criminal offense."Ward v. State,655 So.2d 1290, 1292(Fla. 5th DCA1995);see alsoJohnson v. State,632 So.2d 1062(Fla. 5th DCA1994).Here, Mr. Hubbard was convicted of aggravated child abuse based on instructions which misstated the elements of both the charged offense and a lesser included offense.Given that there is a reasonable probability that the court's instruction affected the jury's verdict, we must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. State
...725 So.2d 1178, 1178-79 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998); see also Smith v. State, 772 So.2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). But see Hubbard v. State, 751 So.2d 771, 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). If the challenged instructions define either a nonexistent crime or totally fail to address an element of a crime, the a......
-
King v. State, 5D00-3801.
...occur if the error relates to an element of the crime. Neal v. State, 783 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Anderson; Hubbard v. State, 751 So.2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). However, in order for the error in the instruction to be fundamental, i......
-
Saidi v. State
...that is confusing or misleading regarding an element of the crime charged is reviewable as fundamental error. See Hubbard v. State, 751 So.2d 771, 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that the issuance of "`an incomplete and inaccurate instruction on the law is fundamental error where the error......
-
Neal v. State
...instruction on the law is fundamental error where the error relates to the elements of the criminal offense." Hubbard v. State, 751 So.2d 771, 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (quoting Ward v. State, 655 So.2d 1290, 1291-92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citing State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991); Brumbl......