McInnis v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2792,94-2792 |
| Citation | 671 So.2d 803 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D242 James McINNIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Charles M. Greene, Judge.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
James McInnis appeals from a final judgment and sentence convicting him of grand theft. McInnis alleges that the trial court fundamentally erred by unlawfully minimizing the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard by instructing the venire that the state need not prove its case "to perfection or certainty." We agree and reverse.
The instruction given to the venire at bar is substantially similar to the jury instruction given in Jones v. State, 656 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), as the trial court in Jones also instructed the venire that the state did not have to prove the defendant's guilt to an absolute certainty. In Jones, this court held that the trial court's instruction, in which it stated that certitude was not required, abridged the reasonable doubt standard, a component of due process of law in a criminal proceeding. Id. at 490. This court further deemed such a minimization of the reasonable doubt standard fundamental error, as it deprived the appellant of his defense, the reliance on a correct instruction on the reasonable doubt standard. This court also distinguished Jones from the third district's opinion in Freeman v. State, 576 So.2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
In Freeman, the court held that there was no reversible error in a complained-of portion of a jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court noted that no objection was made by the defendant to this instruction, and the giving of the instruction did not otherwise rise to the level of fundamental error, especially when considered in context with the balance of the trial court's extensive and proper jury instructions on reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence. Id. at 416. Conversely, this court noted in Jones that there were insufficient balancing instructions.
At bar, as in Jones, the trial court repeatedly stressed that certitude of the defendant's guilt was not required. In accordance with Jones, this minimization of the reasonable doubt standard was fundamental error as it deprived McInnis of his defense (reliance on this standard). In addition, as in Jones, there were no proper balancing instructions. In both cases, the instructions were given to the venire, and the standard instructions were not given until the jury was being instructed before retiring. Without these balancing instructions, the error was fundamental. Accordingly, we reverse in accordance with our prior opinion in Jones.
The State of Florida has moved this court for rehearing, rehearing en banc, certification of conflict and certification of questions. We deny all motions except for the motion for certification of questions. We certify the same two questions that were certified as ones of great public importance in Wilson v. State, 672 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), to wit:
DOES THE JURY INSTRUCTION GIVEN IN THIS CASE IMPERMISSIBLY REDUCE THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD BELOW THE PROTECTIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE?
IF SO IS SUCH AN INSTRUCTION 1 FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?
1 Prior to empaneling the jury the trial court gave the following instruction:
The state is not required to prove these charges absolutely, or 100 percent, or perfectly to you, because as human beings we know one thing, unless we see and experience something ourselves we can never be that sure in our minds of what's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 95-1290
...a jury, is error. E.g., Jones v. State, 656 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995); McInnis v. State, 671 So.2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). That issue has subsequently been certified to the supreme court. Wilson v. State, 668 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. granted......
-
Reyes v. State, 95-0034
...at bar are the full and proper jury instructions that were given to the jury prior to deliberations. However, in McInnis v. State, 671 So.2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court held that the instructions prior to retiring are not the extensive jury instructions that Freeman is referencing. ......
-
State v. McInnis
...Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for Respondent. SHAW, Justice. We have for review McInnis v. State, 671 So.2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), wherein the district court certified as questions of great public importance the same questions before this Court in State v. ......
- State v. McInnis