Verdult v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Verdult v. State

645 So. 2d 530, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 1994 WL 617085

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 530 (Verdult 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

Verdult v. State, 645 So. 2d 530, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 1994 WL 617085 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Verdult appeals from a final judgment convicting him of two counts of grand theft. We reverse on the basis that the trial court should have given Verdult’s requested jury instruction on his “good faith defense,” as the contracts he signed with the alleged victims, Ohannes Melkonian and Michelle West, constitute evidence of his good faith belief that he was entitled to the property in question. See Williams v. State, 395 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how disdainfully the judge may feel about the merits of such defense); Solomon v. State, 436 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (defendant entitled to jury instruction on defense if evidence exists no matter how weak or improbable). Because we find merit in Ver-dult’s argument that the trial court reversibly erred by not giving the requested “good faith defense” jury instruction, we do not need to address Verdult’s other point on appeal.

REVERSED.

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Verdult appeals from a final judgment convicting him of two counts of grand theft. We reverse on the basis that the trial court should have given Verdult’s requested jury instruction on his “good faith defense,” as the contracts he signed with the alleged victims, Ohannes Melkonian and Michelle West, constitute evidence of his good faith belief that he was entitled to the property in question. See Williams v. State, 395 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how disdainfully the judge may feel about the merits of such defense); Solomon v. State, 436 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (defendant entitled to jury instruction on defense if evidence exists no matter how weak or improbable). Because we find merit in Ver-dult’s argument that the trial court reversibly erred by not giving the requested “good faith defense” jury instruction, we do not need to address Verdult’s other point on appeal.

REVERSED.

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 530, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 1994 WL 617085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verdult-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack