Henderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henderson v. State

429 So. 2d 1284, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18987

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1983

DocketNo. 81-2505

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 429 So. 2d 1284 (Henderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. State, 429 So. 2d 1284, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18987 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where the sole issue in dispute is the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery, the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property is not fundamental error which will be recognized in the absence of an objection. Compare Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982); Lewis v. State, 411 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Leary v. State, 406 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Gibson v. State, 403 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McMurtroy v. State, 400 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 400 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), with Holmes v. State, 412 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jackson v. State, 412 So.2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (even though failure to instruct on intent element in robbery case preserved by proper objection, error harmless where no genuine issue on intent). The instructions given, including a reading of the charge contained [1285]*1285in the information, sufficiently informed the jury of the material elements of the crime. Patrick v. State, 136 Fla. 853, 187 So. 383 (1939). .

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where the sole issue in dispute is the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery, the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property is not fundamental error which will be recognized in the absence of an objection. Compare Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982); Lewis v. State, 411 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Leary v. State, 406 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Gibson v. State, 403 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McMurtroy v. State, 400 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 400 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), with Holmes v. State, 412 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jackson v. State, 412 So.2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (even though failure to instruct on intent element in robbery case preserved by proper objection, error harmless where no genuine issue on intent). The instructions given, including a reading of the charge contained [1285]*1285in the information, sufficiently informed the jury of the material elements of the crime. Patrick v. State, 136 Fla. 853, 187 So. 383 (1939). .

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 So. 2d 1284, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack