Rayner v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42693,42693 |
| Parties | Alexander RAYNER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jack F. White, Jr., Clearwater, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Charles Corces, Jr., and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
We granted certiorari in this cause to review an appearent conflict between the decision below in Rayner v. State, 264 So.2d 74 (Fla.App.2d 1972) and this Court's earlier decision in State v. Washington, 268 So.2d 901 (Fla.1972). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., Article V (1971), § (3)(b), (3), F.S.A.
In the course of his trial on robbery charges, defendant in the instant case affirmatively requested the trial court not to give instructions on lesser included offenses. The trial court determined that the request was proper, and no instructions were given. The jury thereupon convicted defendant of robbery. On appeal, and over defendant's assertion that it was error for the trial court to fail to instruct on lesser included offenses, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding in essence that it was permissible for a defendant to affirmatively waive the giving of such instructions.
In State v. Washington, supra, defendant objected to the giving of instructions on lesser included offenses. Nevertheless the trial court gave the instructions. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction on the theory that a defendant should have the option of standing or falling on the actual charges against him. This Court disagreed, and in quashing the decision below, said in part:
'The rule established by the District Court comports with logic and fairness. By not objecting to a lesser included offense instruction, a defendant would waive any contention that he was not given notice that the jury could convict him for lesser included offenses. When he did object, the State would be forced to have its case stand or fall on whether the jury found the defendant guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment or information. However, although it may have set forth the better rule, the District Court's holding is not permitted under F.S. Section 919.16, F.S.A. (now superseded by Rule 3.150, CPR, which is virtually identical) and our interpretation of that statute in Brown v. State, supra.
'The statute provides:
(Emphasis supplied)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harbin v. State
...of this proposition has been affirmed by a number of states. E.g., People v. Taylor, 36 Ill.2d 483, 224 N.E.2d 266 (1967); Rayner v. State, Fla., 273 So.2d 759 (1973); State v. 238 Minn. 517, 57 N.W.2d 635 (1953). "Accordingly, we hold that a trial court may properly give a lesser included ......
-
State v. Terry
...State, 245 So.2d 68 (Fla.1971); State v. Washington, 268 So.2d 901 (Fla.1972); State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353 (Fla.1972); Rayner v. State, 273 So.2d 759 (Fla.1973); State v. Wilson, 276 So.2d 45 (Fla.1973).1 Of more than one hundred rules of criminal procedure, only thirteen are completel......
-
Harris v. State
...argues that our holdings in Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968), State v. Washington, 268 So.2d 901 (Fla.1972), and Rayner v. State, 273 So.2d 759 (Fla.1973), mandate a trial judge to give jury instructions on all necessarily included lesser offenses. He maintains that the trial judge ......
-
State v. Howell
...of this proposition has been affirmed by a number of states. E.g., People v. Taylor, 36 Ill.2d 483, 224 N.E.2d 266 (1967); Rayner v. State, Fla. 273 So.2d 759 (1973); State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, 57 N.W.2d 635 Accordingly, we hold that a trial court may properly give a lesser included ......