Wool v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wool v. State

537 So. 2d 630, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 152, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5784, 1988 WL 139102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1988

DocketNo. 88-37

StatusPublished

This text of 537 So. 2d 630 (Wool 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

Wool v. State, 537 So. 2d 630, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 152, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5784, 1988 WL 139102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence for the conviction to have been under the theory of either premeditated or felony murder.

Defendant also contends there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct that the jury must unanimously agree upon the particular theory upon which a verdict of first degree murder is based. The alternate grounds of this contention are that without unanimity of that nature, first, there was no unanimous verdict as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440, and, second, there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. We do not agree with this contention. See Buford v. State, 492 So.2d 355 (Fla.1986); Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla.1985). See also Gorham v. State, 521 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla.1988).

We do not conclude that defendant’s final contention has merit.

Affirmed.

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence for the conviction to have been under the theory of either premeditated or felony murder.

Defendant also contends there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct that the jury must unanimously agree upon the particular theory upon which a verdict of first degree murder is based. The alternate grounds of this contention are that without unanimity of that nature, first, there was no unanimous verdict as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440, and, second, there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. We do not agree with this contention. See Buford v. State, 492 So.2d 355 (Fla.1986); Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla.1985). See also Gorham v. State, 521 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla.1988).

We do not conclude that defendant’s final contention has merit.

Affirmed.

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 630, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 152, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5784, 1988 WL 139102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wool-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack