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.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 0 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. DiGuiliogreen2 sentences2016This objection preserved the issue for appeal and triggered the harmless error analysis, which places the heavy burden on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to show “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986); see also Barnes v. State, 108 So. 3d 700, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Where a trial court erroneously fails to give a requested special instruction that it should have given, and the requesting party makes a contemporaneous objection, the State has the burden, as the beneficiary of the error, to pro 2016This objection preserved the issue for appeal and triggered the harmless error analysis, which places the heavy burden on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to show “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986); see also Barnes v. State, 108 So.3d 700, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (‘Where a trial court erroneously fails to give a requested special instruction that it should have given, and the requesting party makes a contemporaneous objection, the State has the burden, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove | 3 | 3 |
Carpenter v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Alvarez v. State, 890 So. 2d 389, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Where the Florida Standard Jury Instruction adequately apprises the jury as to the law and evidence, it is proper to give the standard instruction rather than a requested special instruction.”) (citing Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182, 1200 (Fla. 2001)). 2004See Carpenter v. State, 785 So.2d 1182, 1200 (Fla.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Barnes v. Stategreen2 sentences2016This objection preserved the issue for appeal and triggered the harmless error analysis, which places the heavy burden on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to show “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986); see also Barnes v. State, 108 So. 3d 700, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Where a trial court erroneously fails to give a requested special instruction that it should have given, and the requesting party makes a contemporaneous objection, the State has the burden, as the beneficiary of the error, to pro 2016This objection preserved the issue for appeal and triggered the harmless error analysis, which places the heavy burden on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to show “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986); see also Barnes v. State, 108 So.3d 700, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (‘Where a trial court erroneously fails to give a requested special instruction that it should have given, and the requesting party makes a contemporaneous objection, the State has the burden, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove | 2 | 2 |
Alvarez v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Alvarez v. State, 890 So. 2d 389, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Where the Florida Standard Jury Instruction adequately apprises the jury as to the law and evidence, it is proper to give the standard instruction rather than a requested special instruction.”) (citing Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182, 1200 (Fla. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
DeJesus v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See DeJesus v. State, 98 So.3d 105, 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Stephens, 787 So.2d at 756-57 (concluding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s requested special instruction because, although the defendant demonstrated that the instruction would have supported his theory of defense, he failed to establish that the standard instruction did not adequately cover his theory of defense, and that the special instruction would not have misled or confused the jury). 2012Id. at 757 . | 1 | 1 |
Durie v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Unlike Gardner , the defendants in the instant case requested a special instruction, not a standard instruction, the requested special instruction was false, misleading, and confusing, and while Gardner presented evidence of his intoxication, the defendants in the instant case presented no evidence of their “good faith.” Id.; see also Durie v. State, 751 So.2d 685, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (finding no error in the failure to give the defendant’s requested good faith jury instruction because the defendant’s mistake as to the law was not a defense to grand theft and his actions were inconsistent | 1 | 1 |
Chicone v. Statered1 sentence2000See Chicone, 684 So.2d at 745 ; Mercer v. State, 656 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Bruno v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 81 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 112 , 116 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991); Perry v. State, 522 So.2d 817 , *1081 819-820 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Ahferom v. Michigan Bureau of Workers Disability Compensationgreen2 sentences1992See Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 81 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 112 , 116 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991); Perry v. State, 522 So.2d 817 , *1081 819-820 (Fla. 1988). 1992See Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 81 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 112 , 116 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991); Perry v. State, 522 So.2d 817 , *1081 819-820 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence1991As this Court has recognized, "a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction." Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); see also 558 So.2d at 41 (Ervin, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Stategreen1 sentence1991As this Court has recognized, "a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction." Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); see also 558 So.2d at 41 (Ervin, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1986Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marr v. State
green
2 sentences2015In Marr, we had for consideration the propriety of a similar requested special instruction in a sexual battery prosecution that would advise the jury that “where no other person was an immediate witness to the alleged act, the testimony of the prosecutrix should be rigidly scrutinized.” 494 So. 2d at 1140 . 2015In Marr , we had for consideration the propriety of a similar requested special instruction in a sexual battery prosecution that would advise the jury that “where no other person was an immediate witness to the alleged act, the testimony of the prosecu-trix should be rigidly scrutinized.” 494 So.2d at 1140 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gardner v. State
green
1 sentence2012Likewise, the majority’s reliance on Gardner v. State, 480 So.2d 91 (Fla.1985), for the general proposition that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense, provides us with no insight regarding the instant case. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Rodriguez v. State
green
1 sentence2012Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), another case relied on by the majority, is, however, instructive. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County
green
1 sentence2000See § 33-311(A)(3), (F)(1),(5), Miami-Dade County Code; CDMP, Traffic Circulation Element, objective 5. [1] *1116 In our recent decision in Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 752 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which admittedly involved similar issues and facts, we stated as follows: An applicant seeking special exceptions and unusual uses need only demonstrate to the decision-making body that its proposal is consistent with the county's land use plan; that the uses are specifically authorized as special exceptions and unusual uses in the applicable zoning district; and that the reques | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mercer v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Chicone, 684 So.2d at 745 ; Mercer v. State, 656 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Perry v. State
green
1 sentence1992See Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76, 81 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 112 , 116 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991); Perry v. State, 522 So.2d 817 , *1081 819-820 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Smith v. Florida
green
1 sentence1991As this Court has recognized, "a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction." Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); see also 558 So.2d at 41 (Ervin, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In re Damiano
green
1 sentence1991As this Court has recognized, "a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction." Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); see also 558 So.2d at 41 (Ervin, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1991As this Court has recognized, "a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction." Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); see also 558 So.2d at 41 (Ervin, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.