Krause v. State
| Decision Date | 05 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D09–4086.,4D09–4086. |
| Citation | 98 So.3d 71 |
| Parties | Craig KRAUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Craig KRAUSE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D09–4086.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.
July 5, 2012.
[98 So.3d 72]
Stephen J. Finta of Law Offices of Stephen J. Finta, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense, even though at the date of the commission of the crime, voluntary intoxication was still a viable defense. Although the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the law, we find the error was not fundamental error and does not compel a reversal.
Craig Krause resided with the victim and her son. Krause and the victim argued frequently, and Krause threatened to kill the victim several months before she was murdered. On August 21, 1999, a neighbor heard Krause and the victim arguing and then saw Krause sitting outside the house crying. Krause had a bottle in his hand at the time.
About an hour later, the same neighbor was awakened to the sound of his mother yelling about a fire. The victim was found in the charred residence with fourteen stab wounds, which included defensive wounds and a stab wound to the left side of her head. The victim died due to multiple sharp force injuries.
Krause was found a little over one mile from the victim's residence. Krause admitted to law enforcement that he killed the victim and set her residence on fire.
During the trial, the jury was permitted to submit written questions to the witnesses. One juror submitted this question: “During the investigation of Mr. Krause was there ever any indication, or was he ever tested for being intoxicated?” The trial court determined that the question could not be asked because intoxication was not a legal defense. Neither side objected to the trial court's ruling.
After the testimony of another witness, a nurse who treated Krause in the emergency room, a juror asked, “[D]id the patient appear to be intoxicated?” Another juror similarly asked, “Did Mr. Krause appear to be intoxicated or show signs of intoxication?” The trial court again noted that voluntary intoxication was not a defense, except this time the State noted that an instruction on voluntary intoxication needed to be given.
[98 So.3d 73]
During the jury charge conference, the State requested, as a result of all the questions from the jury, a jury instruction stating that voluntary intoxication was not a defense in this case. Krause's counsel objected without explanation, simply stating: “Judge, for the record we object to the voluntary intoxication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silver v. State
...is abuse of discretion,' but that 'discretion, as with any issue of law is strictly limited by case law.'" Krause v. State, 98 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Lewis v. State, 22 So. 3d 753, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). Any objection to a jury instruction must be specific; without a ......
-
Silver v. State
...is abuse of discretion,’ but that ‘discretion, as with any issue of law is strictly limited by case law.’ ” Krause v. State, 98 So.3d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Lewis v. State, 22 So.3d 753, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ). Any objection to a jury instruction must be specific; without a ......
-
Cherfrere v. State, 4D13-4071
...to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’ " Krause v. State , 98 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Bassallo v. State , 46 So. 3d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ). Appellant correctly points out that a jury's ve......
-
Reed v. State, 4D18-1533
...it fails on the merits. "Generally speaking, the standard of review for jury instructions is abuse of discretion . . . ." Krause v. State, 98 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, "a criminal defendant is entitled, upon request and by law, to a jury instruction on the law pertaining t......