Perriman v. State
Decision Date | 18 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 92,927.,92,927. |
Citation | 731 So.2d 1243 |
Parties | Roderick Terrell PERRIMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harold Long, Jr., Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Terri Leon-Benner and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorneys General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.
We have for review Perriman v. State, 707 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), wherein the district court certified:
Whether reversible error is committed when the court fails to directly answer a jury question, when the correct response would resolve the issue posed in favor of the defendant.
Id. at 1153. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer as explained below and approve the result in Perriman on this issue.
Petitioner Roderick Perriman on May 22, 1996, was picked up at home by a friend, Frank Duke, who was driving a Chevrolet Caprice, and the two left to play basketball. Duke had taken a license plate from a car he had previously owned and placed it on the Caprice, and the police now stopped the Caprice because of the mismatched tag. As officers questioned Duke outside the car, they observed Perriman inside the car making furtive movements with his hands and feet in the area between the passenger seat and console. When Perriman exited the car, police found a handgun wedged between the passenger seat and console. Perriman was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and was tried before a jury. During deliberations, the jury sent the following note to the judge:
The judge then read the note in open court and the following discussion took place:
The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court sentenced Perriman as an habitual violent felony offender. The district court affirmed and certified the above question. Perriman contends that the trial court abused its discretion in responding to the jury query by directing the jury to refer to the standard instructions. We disagree.
The controlling rule of procedure, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, provides that the giving of additional instructions in response to a jury query is within the trial court's discretion:
Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.410 (emphasis added). This rule of procedure was specifically amended in 1972 to make its strictures discretionary rather than mandatory:
1972 Amendment. This is the same as former Rule 3.410, except that the former rule made it mandatory for the trial judge to give additional instructions upon request. The committee feels that this should be discretionary.
Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.410 committee note. The discretionary nature of this rule has been memorialized in our cases,1 and the Court generally has approved the denial of a request for more specific instructions.2
The Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases were designed to eliminate—or minimize—juror confusion concerning the applicable law in criminal cases. The instructions were researched and formulated by a committee of experts and then reviewed by this Court in an effort to eliminate imprecision.3 The charges were designed above all to be accurate and clear—and thus to withstand appellate scrutiny. In contrast, an on-thespot instruction formulated by a lone trial judge in the midst of a live proceeding has none of these safeguards and may prove lacking when placed under the microscope of appellate review. To compel trial courts to give such off-the-cuff responses upon request—as Perriman suggests—would invite a recurrence of the pre-1970 problems that gave rise to the standard instructions.
The yardstick by which jury instructions are measured is clarity, for jurors must understand fully the law that they are expected to apply fairly. Where a jury is confused concerning a point of law, the court must exercise sound discretion. In some cases, the court may properly refer the jury to the standard instructions in toto given in that particular case, but in many cases the preferred practice will be to direct the jury to specific instructions. Where appropriate, the court may also clarify a point of law with a brief, clear response. However, if the trial court feels the need to distill or simplify a standard instruction for the sake of clarity, the matter should be brought to the attention of the experts on this Court's Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases.
As noted above, the jury in the present case submitted the following handwritten note to the judge:
The judge then told the jury to refer to the jury instructions that had been given:
THE COURT: Okay. Please refer to the jury instruction. Please refer to the jury instruction. Thank you.
The instructions that had been given included the following, which track the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) verbatim:
See Fla. Std. Jury. Instr. (Crim.) 163-64.
On these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give an additional instruction. The jury's note was written in a cursory style and its meaning was less than precise. An additional ex-temporaneous instruction would have run the risk of further confusing the jury. The judge ultimately told the jury to refer to the standard instructions, and these instructions, which present an accurate statement of the law, provided adequate guidance.4 While the preferred practice...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. White
...instructions are measured is clarity, for jurors must understand fully the law that they are expected to apply fairly." Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999). By that standard, our current jury instructions fall short. Without a further clarifying definition of "likely" and an ......
-
Reyes v. State, 3D98-2959.
...cited; Viveros v. State, 699 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(misinstruction as to element of offense reversible error); Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243 (Fla.1999)(stressing importance of adhering to standard jury instructions), and that they must not be repeated at the new Because we find n......
-
McGirth v. State
...Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 496 (Fla.2005) (quoting White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002)); see Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla.1999) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.410). During deliberations, the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with the trial judge regardin......
-
Bates v. State
...to specific instructions. Where appropriate, the court may also clarify a point of law with a brief clear response. Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243, 1246-7 (Fla.1999) (emphasis added). I recognize the invaluable role the standard instructions play in a criminal trial, and I also sympathiz......
-
Containing Canakaris: tailoring Florida's one-size-fits-most standard of review.
...3d 639, 641 n.3 (D. C. Cir. 1999). (28) Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Elec. Co-op., 548 N.W. 2d 829, 832 (Wis. 1996). (29) Perriman v. State, 731 So. 2d 1243, 1246-47 (Fla. (30) State v. Miyashiro, 979 P. 2d 85, 88 (Haw. 1999); see Richardson, 880 P. 2d at 179 (Haw. 1994). (31) Coulson v. Marsh ......