Ridge v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ridge v. State

158 So. 3d 632, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7293, 2014 WL 1976321

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-3

StatusPublished

This text of 158 So. 3d 632 (Ridge 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

Ridge v. State, 158 So. 3d 632, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7293, 2014 WL 1976321 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of armed trespass, resisting an officer without violence, and loitering or prowling. He contends the lower court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on his defense of involuntary intoxication. The State properly concedes that Appellant was entitled to an instruction on involuntary intoxication, and it does not take issue with Appellant’s assertion that the trial judge’s stated reason for denying the instruction was erroneous. The State nevertheless asserts that the trial court should be affirmed because the proffered, special instruction was not a correct statement of the law — an objection not argued below.¹ We do not view this as a case where the trial court may be affirmed for alternative reasons not argued below. Had the State objected to the content of the instruction, Appellant could have easily corrected the error. Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to a new trial with the now-standard instruction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of armed trespass, resisting an officer without violence, and loitering or prowling. He contends the lower court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on his defense of involuntary intoxication. The State properly concedes that Appellant was entitled to an instruction on involuntary intoxication, and it does not take issue with Appellant’s assertion that the trial judge’s stated reason for denying the instruction was erroneous. The State nevertheless asserts that the trial court should be affirmed because the proffered, special instruction was not a correct statement of the law — an objection not argued below.¹ We do not view this as a case where the trial court may be affirmed for alternative reasons not argued below. Had the State objected to the content of the instruction, Appellant could have easily corrected the error. Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to a new trial with the now-standard instruction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 3d 632, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7293, 2014 WL 1976321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridge-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.