Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wellergreen2 sentences2021We have long required an instruction for any lesser offense “all the elements of which are alleged in the accusatory pleadings and supported by the evidence adduced at trial.” State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923, 926 (Fla. 1991). 2021We have long required an instruction for any lesser offense “all the elements of which are alleged in the accusatory pleadings and supported by the evidence adduced at trial.” State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923, 926 (Fla. 1991). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Terrygreen2 sentences2021Allowing a “third option” to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense “ensures that the jury will accord the defendant the full benefit of the reasonable- doubt standard.” Id. - 14 - State courts, including ours, “have unanimously held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction where the evidence warrants it.” Id. at 636 ; see also Terry, 336 So. 2d at 67 (“Therefore, if the trial judge . . . found sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on the major offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, he should have instructed the jury on th 2021Allowing a “third option” to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense “ensures that the jury will accord the defendant the full benefit of the reasonable- doubt standard.” Id. - 14 - State courts, including ours, “have unanimously held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction where the evidence warrants it.” Id. at 636 ; see also Terry, 336 So. 2d at 67 (“Therefore, if the trial judge . . . found sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on the major offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, he should have instructed the jury on th | 2 | 2 |
Hopper v. Evansgreen2 sentences2017Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982), In Hopper, a capital case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated: [D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction. ... 2017Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982), In Hopper, a capital case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated: [D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction. ... | 1 | 4 |
Keeble v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017The federal rule is that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Id. at 611-12 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 (quoting Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973)). 2017The federal rule is that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Id. at 611-12 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 (quoting Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973)). | 1 | 3 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences1997The court attributed very little weight to Jimenez's potential for rehabilitation while in prison, but considered his potential sentence to be a strong argument which the court gave great weight. [4] The issues raised are whether (1) the trial court conducted an insufficient hearing and improperly denied Jimenez's request to discharge his court-appointed counsel; (2) Jimenez's absence from two sidebar conferences when cause challenges were being exercised denied him a fair trial; (3) the trial court erred by impermissibly restricting Jimenez's right to cross-examination; (4) the trial court fa 1989In affirming his conviction, the district court of appeal applied a lesser included offense analysis to hold that because the information did not allege the elements of the category two lesser offense of third-degree murder, Herrington was not entitled to an instruction on that offense. [*] In Green v. State, 475 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1985), we held that where a defendant is charged with first-degree murder the judge must give his requested instruction on third-degree murder if there is evidence that the killing was done during the commission of one of the underlying felonies of third-degree murder. | 1 | 2 |
Timothy Anderson v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2020Anderson, 247 So. 3d at 685 (Makar, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 6 These points do not give us pause. | 1 | 1 |
Broughton v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Even odder is that in LaValley v. State, 633 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the State successfully sought the same instruction over the defendant’s objection, the defendant was found guilty of the reckless driving charge, and the appellate court affirmed, saying “we believe that a charge that one committed an aggravated assault by intentionally driving her vehicle in a threatening manner subsumes the elements of reckless driving.” These disparate results in the caselaw support the conflict certified. | 1 | 1 |
Savoie v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308, 312 (Fla. 1982) (“[O]nce this Court has jurisdiction of a cause, it has jurisdiction to consider all issues appropriately raised in the appellate process, as though the case had originally come to this Court on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Khianthalat v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Khianthalat, 974 So.2d at 363 (holding that a defendant was not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction when the evidence did not support it). | 1 | 1 |
Jerome Campbell v. Ralph Coyle, Wardengreen1 sentence2017See Campbell v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Henig v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Moreover, nothing in the transcript or record reflects any other basis for the statement that counsel "knew better than that." -5- instruction issue was preserved for review because the "record reflects that Mr. Higgs requested a reckless driving instruction for count one and the trial court unequivocally denied the request" (emphasis added)); Henig v. State, 820 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (dismissing the State's assertion that the defendant waived a charge on the lesser included offense where defense counsel made the request and "[t]he trial court made it clear at that time that | 1 | 1 |
Harvey v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Cosme v. State, 89 So.3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adkinsgreen1 sentence2012Cf. State v. Adkins, 553 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that a racketeering charge was properly dismissed when felony perjury under section 837.02, one of two alleged predicate acts charged in the information, was dismissed for failure to state a criminal offense, even though the facts might establish the crime of misdemeanor perjury under section 837.012; that crime and that statute were not delineated in the information); see also United States v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir.2008) (noting that a crime alleged as a predicate act for purposes of a racketeering charge is not | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Fowlergreen1 sentence2012Cf. State v. Adkins, 553 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that a racketeering charge was properly dismissed when felony perjury under section 837.02, one of two alleged predicate acts charged in the information, was dismissed for failure to state a criminal offense, even though the facts might establish the crime of misdemeanor perjury under section 837.012; that crime and that statute were not delineated in the information); see also United States v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir.2008) (noting that a crime alleged as a predicate act for purposes of a racketeering charge is not | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See id. | 1 | 1 |
Vickery v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See e.g., Vickery v. State, 869 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Bethea v. State, 767 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Oehling v. State, 659 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Koile v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Sanders v. State, 847 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review granted, 905 So.2d 892 (Fla.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Sanders v. State, 847 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review granted, 905 So.2d 892 (Fla.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Roberts v. State, 715 So.2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 1 Even if the defendant’s motion had asserted that the ineffective assistance of counsel was based upon counsel’s failure to discuss the lesser included offense instruction with the defendant and his failure to get the defendant to expressly waive the instruction on the record, grant ing of the motion would have been improper. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Espinosagreen1 sentence2000See Espinosa, 686 So.2d at 1348-9 . | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See also Holland v. State, 634 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), in which the majority held that failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense, one step removed from the offense of conviction, constitutes reversible error, thus implicitly rejecting the contention that a mere request for a lesser included offense instruction is not preserved for review where counsel fails to inform the court that the requested instruction covers a necessarily lesser included offense. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Williams v. State, 627 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence1997The court attributed very little weight to Jimenez's potential for rehabilitation while in prison, but considered his potential sentence to be a strong argument which the court gave great weight. [4] The issues raised are whether (1) the trial court conducted an insufficient hearing and improperly denied Jimenez's request to discharge his court-appointed counsel; (2) Jimenez's absence from two sidebar conferences when cause challenges were being exercised denied him a fair trial; (3) the trial court erred by impermissibly restricting Jimenez's right to cross-examination; (4) the trial court fa | 1 | 1 |
| Torrence v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2021Allowing a “third option” to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense “ensures that the jury will accord the defendant the full benefit of the reasonable- doubt standard.” Id. - 14 - State courts, including ours, “have unanimously held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction where the evidence warrants it.” Id. at 636 ; see also Terry, 336 So. 2d at 67 (“Therefore, if the trial judge . . . found sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on the major offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, he should have instructed the jury on th 2021Allowing a “third option” to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense “ensures that the jury will accord the defendant the full benefit of the reasonable- doubt standard.” Id. - 14 - State courts, including ours, “have unanimously held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction where the evidence warrants it.” Id. at 636 ; see also Terry, 336 So. 2d at 67 (“Therefore, if the trial judge . . . found sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on the major offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, he should have instructed the jury on th | 3 | 2013–2021 |
State v. Wimberly
green
1 sentence2013Roberts, Beck, and Hopper addressed challenges to sentences of death and were — as Hopper, 456 U.S. at 611 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 explained — “concerned with insuring that sentencing discretion in capital cases is channelled so that arbitrary and capricious results are avoided.” But as Justice Shaw recognized in his dissenting opinion in Wimberly, 498 So.2d at 934 , there is no reason that the purpose of avoiding arbitrary and capricious results in jury verdicts should be limited to the context of death penalty cases. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Holmes v. State
green
1 sentence2006That case holds that: “Failure to give an instruction for an offense one step removed from the conviction constitutes per se reversible error.” Id. at 1388 . 1 In an en banc opinion currently on review by the Florida Supreme Court, the First District held that a postconviction claim based upon counsel’s failure to request a lesser included offense instruction cannot meet the prejudice prong of Strickland 2 as a matter of law. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Oehling v. State
green
1 sentence2006See e.g., Vickery v. State, 869 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Bethea v. State, 767 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Oehling v. State, 659 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bethea v. State
green
1 sentence2006See e.g., Vickery v. State, 869 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Bethea v. State, 767 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Oehling v. State, 659 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Heathcoat
green
1 sentence1998Finally, the question of whether the denial of a timely specific request for a jury instruction is preserved for appellate review absent a further objection to the failure to give the instruction was addressed by the court in State v. Heathcoat, 442 So.2d 955 (Fla.1983), the court holding that further objection is not required for preservation. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1997Rothenberg on the thoroughness of her sentencing order. [12] Issue 6 (prosecutor's penalty phase arguments). [13] Issue 9 (constitutionality of capital punishment). [14] See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637 (Fla.1995)(upholding death sentence for stabbing death of elderly female inside her home during a burglary). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Benjamin v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Foreshaw v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Sparf v. United States green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Berra v. United States green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Carpenter green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Vickers green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| United States Ex Rel. Brodie v. Hilton neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| United States v. Jerry E. Campbell green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Oliver v. State neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Blockburger v. United States green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Brown v. Ohio green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Hand v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Washington v. State green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.