Pratt v. State, AL-439
| Decision Date | 15 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AL-439,AL-439 |
| Parties | Ricky Lee PRATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
A jury found appellant guilty of the offense of introducing into or upon the grounds of a correctional institution contraband, in violation of Section 944.47(1)(a)4, Florida Statutes. The instructions given to the jury, to which appellant admittedly did not object, were as follows:
Now, the essential elements of this offense which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction in this case is that Ricky Lee Pratt, the defendant, did introduce into or upon the grounds of a correctional institution, contraband; that the contraband was cannabis; and that Baker Correctional Institution is a correctional or penal institution operated by the Department of Corrections.
This appeal from the resulting adjudication and sentence raises primarily the question of whether the omission from the jury charge of an instruction as to knowledge of possession, held in Williams v. State, 413 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) to be an essential element of this type of crime, constitutes fundamental error. We hold that under the circumstances of this case it does not.
For an error to be so fundamental that it may be first raised on appeal, the asserted error must amount to a denial of an essentially fair trial. Williams v. State 400 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). On the face of the matter, we cannot see that appellant's right to due process was compromised in any way by the failure to tell the jury that the state must prove something which in fact had essentially gone undisputed. As recognized by our sister court in Williams, the failure to instruct the jury specifically as to essential elements of the crime are to be measured by the standard of the presence or absence of serious prejudice. The main concern under these circumstances, when faced with a question of possible fundamental error, is whether a complete instruction would have resulted in a different verdict. Id., at 546-547.
We cannot say, after a careful study of the trial transcript, that a complete instruction on knowledge would have resulted in a different verdict. We are satisfied in light of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. State
...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 1983). Although not an exhaustive list, the following are relevant circumstances to — the nature of the offense(s) charged and the......
-
Morton v. State
...logical step. 1 The rule has not been applied solely to the omission of the intent element in a robbery charge. See Pratt v. State, 429 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (omission of knowledge element in drug case). Indeed, one appellate court has extended the rule in holding that the failure t......
-
State v. Austin, 87-1443
...district court held that failure to instruct as to an element of crime which is undisputed is not fundamental error. In Pratt v. State, 429 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the failure to instruct on a knowledge of possession element determined to be essential did not constitute fundamental e......
-
Roberts v. State, 1D99-0721.
...of all the evidence, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted instruction here was harmless. See Pratt v. State, 429 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719, 724-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Kinchen, 490 So.2d 21 (Fla......