Holiday v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holiday v. State

730 So. 2d 830, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4670, 1999 WL 201927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1999

DocketNo. 97-4353

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 730 So. 2d 830 (Holiday 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

Holiday v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4670, 1999 WL 201927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred fundamentally by giving the jury the standard instruction on entrapment in effect in 1997, when this offense and appellant’s trial took place. The standard instruction was changed effective July, 1998, and is now consistent with the supreme court’s analysis of the entrapment defense found in Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1993). See Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 723 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1998). See also Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appeal dismissed, 718 So.2d 755 (Fla.1998). It is undisputed that no objection was raised at trial to the standard jury instruction.

In Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993), the supreme court ruled that “[fjailure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error.” Since the entrapment instruction pertains to a defense rather than to an essential element of the crime charged, no fundamental error occurred. We recognize that the Fourth District recently ruled to the contrary in Miller v. State, 723 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and accordingly certify conflict with that decision.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred fundamentally by giving the jury the standard instruction on entrapment in effect in 1997, when this offense and appellant’s trial took place. The standard instruction was changed effective July, 1998, and is now consistent with the supreme court’s analysis of the entrapment defense found in Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1993). See Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 723 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1998). See also Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appeal dismissed, 718 So.2d 755 (Fla.1998). It is undisputed that no objection was raised at trial to the standard jury instruction.

In Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993), the supreme court ruled that “[fjailure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error.” Since the entrapment instruction pertains to a defense rather than to an essential element of the crime charged, no fundamental error occurred. We recognize that the Fourth District recently ruled to the contrary in Miller v. State, 723 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and accordingly certify conflict with that decision.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 830, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4670, 1999 WL 201927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holiday-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack