Hires v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hires v. State

823 So. 2d 869, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12049, 2002 WL 1939867

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-2429

StatusPublished

This text of 823 So. 2d 869 (Hires 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

Hires v. State, 823 So. 2d 869, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12049, 2002 WL 1939867 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

Appellant was found guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer. During the charge conference, Hires requested instruction on the lesser included charge of simple battery. The court rejected the charge. Hires failed to object after the instructions were read to the jury, believing that the court had clearly rejected his position. The State concedes error but asserts that the error was waived by Hires’ failure to timely object after the instructions. We have previously determined that such failure to object does not preclude review of the court’s erroneous refusal to give an instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense when a proper request has been made, the court clearly understood the request, and the court clearly denied it. See Rodriguez v. State, 789 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

Appellant was found guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer. During the charge conference, Hires requested instruction on the lesser included charge of simple battery. The court rejected the charge. Hires failed to object after the instructions were read to the jury, believing that the court had clearly rejected his position. The State concedes error but asserts that the error was waived by Hires’ failure to timely object after the instructions. We have previously determined that such failure to object does not preclude review of the court’s erroneous refusal to give an instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense when a proper request has been made, the court clearly understood the request, and the court clearly denied it. See Rodriguez v. State, 789 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 So. 2d 869, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12049, 2002 WL 1939867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hires-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack