Davis v. State

680 So. 2d 601, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10155, 1996 WL 542698
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 25, 1996·No. No. 95-0300·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, we reverse the conviction and remand for new trial because the trial court’s preliminary instructions regarding reasonable doubt constituted fundamental error. See Jones v. State, 656 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1451, 134 L.Ed.2d 570 (1996).

Nevertheless, we certify as one of great public importance the same question certified in Wilson v. State, 668 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. granted, 672 So.2d 543 (Fla.1996).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis v. State, 680 So. 2d 601, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10155, 1996 WL 542698 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

680 So. 2d 601 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Davis
693 So. 2d 540 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)