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.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The Florida Supreme Court has not receded from the long-standing definition of fundamental error as “error that reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 403 (Fla.2003). 2005It is the definition of fundamental error that draws the boundaries of the exception so narrowly: an error is fundamental if it "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 403 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 956 , 124 S.Ct. 408 , 157 L.Ed.2d 292 (2003) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mitrogreen2 sentences2000It is certainly reasonable to assume that, rather than attempting to alter the definition of fundamental error as it evolved through case law, the Legislature intentionally deferred to the judicially created definition of "fundamental error." See Bain, 730 So.2d at 301 ; see also State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1997) (stating that where a term is not defined by statute, the courts may resort to the previous case law definition in order to determine the plain meaning of the term). 2000It is certainly reasonable to assume that, rather than attempting to alter the definition of fundamental error as it evolved through case law, the Legislature intentionally deferred to the judicially created definition of “fundamental error.” See Bain, 730 So.2d at 301 ; see also State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1997) (stating that where a term is not defined by statute, the courts may resort to the previous case law definition in order to determine the plain meaning of the term). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Such error permits reversal of a conviction if the error was “obvious,” if it “likely affected the outcome of the proceedings,” and if it “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Smith v. State, 737 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Ga. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The instant case likewise meets this definition of fundamental error, and represents one of those “rare cases . . . where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.” Ray, 403 So. 2d at 960 . 41 therefore Louidor’s relief, if any, must be found in a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 2015The instant case likewise meets this definition of fundamental error, and represents one of those "rare cases ... where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.” Ray, 403 So.2d at 960. | 1 | 1 |
FB v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Thus, "rarely will an error be deemed fundamental, and the more general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appellate review will usually apply." F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229-30 (Fla.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Maddox, 708 So.2d at 618 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Repeating the definition of fundamental error from State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-645 (Fla.1991) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)), the supreme court found no fundamental error because there is no constitutional requirement that a trial court define reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Delvagreen1 sentence1998Repeating the definition of fundamental error from State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-645 (Fla.1991) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)), the supreme court found no fundamental error because there is no constitutional requirement that a trial court define reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 1993The court concluded: The effect on the verdict of the evidence of the expert here was so obvious and extensive that its admission falls within the definition of fundamental error which this Court may and should review in the interest of justice, regardless of objection at the trial level. 348 So.2d at 31 . | 2 | 1993–2016 |
Judge v. State
green
2 sentences2000As Judge Altenbernd observed, "In its narrowest functional definition, `fundamental error' describes an error that can be remedied on direct appeal, even though the appellant made no contemporaneous objection in the trial court and, thus, the trial judge had no opportunity to correct the error." Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 , 79 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). 2000As Judge Altenbernd observed, “In its narrowest functional definition, ‘fundamental error’ describes an error that can be remedied on direct appeal, even though the appellant made no contemporaneous objection in the trial court and, thus, the trial judge had no opportunity to correct the error.” Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 , 79 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Bain v. State
green
2 sentences2000It is certainly reasonable to assume that, rather than attempting to alter the definition of fundamental error as it evolved through case law, the Legislature intentionally deferred to the judicially created definition of "fundamental error." See Bain, 730 So.2d at 301 ; see also State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1997) (stating that where a term is not defined by statute, the courts may resort to the previous case law definition in order to determine the plain meaning of the term). 2000It is certainly reasonable to assume that, rather than attempting to alter the definition of fundamental error as it evolved through case law, the Legislature intentionally deferred to the judicially created definition of “fundamental error.” See Bain, 730 So.2d at 301 ; see also State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1997) (stating that where a term is not defined by statute, the courts may resort to the previous case law definition in order to determine the plain meaning of the term). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Crawford v. Head, Warden
green
2 sentences2005It is the definition of fundamental error that draws the boundaries of the exception so narrowly: an error is fundamental if it "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 403 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 956 , 124 S.Ct. 408 , 157 L.Ed.2d 292 (2003) (citation omitted). 2005It is the definition of fundamental error that draws the boundaries of the exception so narrowly: an error is fundamental if it "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 403 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 956 , 124 S.Ct. 408 , 157 L.Ed.2d 292 (2003) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lynn v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
green
1 sentence2005It is the definition of fundamental error that draws the boundaries of the exception so narrowly: an error is fundamental if it "reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 403 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 956 , 124 S.Ct. 408 , 157 L.Ed.2d 292 (2003) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.