give instruction in Florida

1920Rep. 65 ; Blount v. State, 30 Fla. 287 , 11 South.

1898Blount v. State, 30 Fla. 287 , 11 South.

1999Appellant also relies on dicta in this court's opinion in Gaines v. State, 652 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (that the failure of the court to give an instruction defining assault was not harmless error).

1997Chief Justice Alderman eloquently and simply stated the law in his separate opinion in Andrews v. State : The Supreme Court held [in Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 , 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981)] that the defendant, upon request, had the right to have the trial court give this instruction in order to minimize the danger that the jury would give evidentiary weight to his failure to testify.

1997Chief Justice Alderman eloquently and simply stated the law in his separate opinion in Andrews v. State : The Supreme Court held [in Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 , 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981)] that the defendant, upon request, had the right to have the trial court give this instruction in order to minimize the danger that the jury would give evidentiary weight to his failure to testify.

1983Martin v. State, 342 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1977), relied upon by appellant, cannot be interpreted as holding that jury instructions are restricted to all degrees of homicide in any case where death ensues.

1983See also Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1981) (holding that the word "shall" in the rule of criminal procedure concerning jury instructions makes it mandatory that the trial court give the instruction on maximum and minimum penalties); Pridgen v. City of Auburndale, 430 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding illegal, inter alia, the placement of a violator of a city ordinance on probation where the city code authorized fines and jail terms but did not authorize placing a defendant on probation).

1974See, Williams v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 13 ; Clements v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 284 So.2d 700 ; Bradley v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So.2d 595 .

1974See, Williams v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 13 ; Clements v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 284 So.2d 700 ; Bradley v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So.2d 595 .

1973In support of his contention in this appeal, the defendant cites, and relies heavily upon, the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Hedges v. State, 172 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1965).

1964For other cases involving liability for collisions resulting from sudden stops, see Annot., 29 A.L.R.2d 5 (1953). [4] When the plaintiff requested the court to give this instruction plaintiff cited 3 Fla.Jur., Automobiles § 131, as authority for the charge. [5] Turner v. McGee, 1961, 68 N.M. 191 , 360 P.2d 383 and Branstetter v. Gerdeman, 1955, 364 Mo. 1230 , 274 S.W.2d 240 .

1964For other cases involving liability for collisions resulting from sudden stops, see Annot., 29 A.L.R.2d 5 (1953). [4] When the plaintiff requested the court to give this instruction plaintiff cited 3 Fla.Jur., Automobiles § 131, as authority for the charge. [5] Turner v. McGee, 1961, 68 N.M. 191 , 360 P.2d 383 and Branstetter v. Gerdeman, 1955, 364 Mo. 1230 , 274 S.W.2d 240 .

1959The following observation on this point was stated by the Supreme Court in Yousko v. Vogt, 1953, 63 So.2d 193 , 194: "A trial judge when faced with a request for a charge upon the doctrine of the `last clear chance' should be extremely cautious.

1939In Duggan v. State, 9 Fla. 516 , the point was made that the record did not show that the judge filed the charge which he gave to the juryj as provided by law.

1923Upon the second question the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that “if a party wishes to avail himself of the omission of the court to charge the jury on any point in the case, he must ask the court to give the instruction desired; otherwise he will not be permitted to assign the omission as error.” Cross v. State, 73 Fla. 530 , 74 South.

1923Upon the second question the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that “if a party wishes to avail himself of the omission of the court to charge the jury on any point in the case, he must ask the court to give the instruction desired; otherwise he will not be permitted to assign the omission as error.” Cross v. State, 73 Fla. 530 , 74 South.

1923Rep. 593 ; Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 , 74 South.

1923Rep. 593 ; Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 , 74 South.

1920Even if the charge objected'to in the seventh ground for a new trial is not as full as it might have been, “The- rule in force in this State is that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the facts proven, and a refusal to do so when asked will be error; but if a party wishes to avail himself of the omission of the court to charge the jury on any point in the case, he must ask the court to give the instruction desired; otherwise, he will not be permitted to assign the omission as error.” Rawlins v. State, 40 Fla. 155 , 24 South.

1907Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406 , 20 South.