green
Positive treatment
25.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953
1989
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayque Gomez Marin v. State of Florida
“It is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and 6 impartial trial . . . that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.” Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pringle v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
Such protection afforded an accused cannot be treated with impunity under the guise of ‘harmless error’. 47 Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1953) (citations omitted)).!!
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ridge Gabriel v. State
Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1953). “[Jury] [i]nstructions, however, are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, and, absent an objection at trial, can be raised on appeal only if fundamental error occurred.” State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 1991) (citing Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978); Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charlie Williams v. State of Florida
“Inherent in a fair trial is the right to have the court ‘correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.’ ” Smith, 76 So.3d at 385 (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniels v. State
We remain mindful that, in the realm of criminal jury instructions, “[i]t is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial ... that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.” Delva, 575 So.2d at 644 (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. State
Inherent in a fair trial is the right to have the court “correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.” Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953); see Delva, 575 So.2d at 644 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barrientos v. State
Jose A. had the right to have the trial court “ ‘correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime[s] charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.’ ” State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1991) (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCain v. State
Instead, the court told the jury that the legal terms meant, basically, whatever the jury wanted them to mean. "[D]ue process requires `that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.'" State v. Kettell, 980 So.2d 1061, 1068 (Fla. *1034 2008) (quoting in part Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kettell
We have previously held that due process requires "that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sloss v. State
I disagree with that holding because I think Hawk is contrary to controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent and fails to distinguish between the failure to give an instruction requiring proof of an essential element of the crime and the failure to give an instruction relevant to an affirmative defense. *1208 In State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991), the Florida Supreme Court said: "[I]t is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial . . . that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and mate…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kettell v. State
"It is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial under the protective powers of our Federal and State Constitutions as contained in the due process of law clauses that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166, 170 (Fla.2002) (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)), superseded on other grounds by statute, § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2002), as recognized in Garcia v…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pigford v. State
In particular, the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Pigford “cannot show the instruction in question would have furthered his defense,” fails to account for the fundamental tenet of jurisprudence that “an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial [is] that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.” State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1991) (citing Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Battle v. State
This Court has long held that defendants have a fundamental right "`to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.'" Delva, 575 So.2d at 644 (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla. *89 1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. State
With regard to the generally applicable law, the Court wrote: We have long held that "[i]t is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial ... that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material *799 elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Small v. State
In Florida, the law is clearly to the effect that "[a] defendant has the right to have a court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736, 745 (Fla.1996) (citing Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barnes v. State
The Supreme Court's language in Reed states unequivocally that under such circumstances, the error is "fundamental" and, thus, "is not subject to harmless error review." Id. at 369-70; Scott, 808 So.2d at 167 ; Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862, 863 (Fla.1982) (acknowledging case law stating that "fundamental error occurs only when the omission [in the jury instruction] is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to convict"); Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953) ("It is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial under the protective powers…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mogavero v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Such protection afforded an accused cannot be treated with impunity under the guise of `harmless error'. 64 So.2d at 916 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walters v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chicone v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruffner v. State
The trial court failed to “correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.” Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Delva
We have long held that "[i]t is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial ... that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence." Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1953).
cited
Cited "see"
Arnold Jerome Knight v. State of Florida
See Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1953); Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366, 369 (Fla. 2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Haygood v. State
See Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953); Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicholson v. State
See Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953) (recognizing that due process entitles a defendant to have the jury correctly and intelligently instructed “on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence”); Bryant v. State, 30 So.3d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Barrientos v. State, 1 So.3d 1209, 1219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Robbins
See State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1991) (“We have long held that ‘[i]t is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial ... that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence.’ ”) (quoting Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)); see also Battle v. State, 911 So.2d 85 (Fla.2005), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1069 , 163 L.Ed.2d 890 (2006); Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166, 170 (Fla.2002)…
cited
Cited "see"
Gordon v. State
See id. at 745 (citing Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. State
See Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953) (discussing defendant's "right to have a[c]ourt correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged").
cited
Cited "see"
Roberts v. State
See Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953); cf. Brown v. State, 661 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flamingo Oil Co. v. Veloz
As observed in Wadman v. State, 750 So.2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999): A trial court “ ‘should not give instructions which are confusing, contradictory, or misleading.’ ” Mogavero v. State, 744 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Butler v. State, 493 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1986)); see Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wadman v. State
A trial court "`should not give instructions which are confusing, contradictory, or misleading."` Mogavero v. State, 744 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Butler v. State, 493 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla.1986)); see Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dortch v. State
A trial court “should not give instructions which are confusing, contradictory, or misleading.” Butler v. State, 493 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla.1986); see also Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953) (noting that a defendant has a due process right to have the court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morton v. State
See also Gerds v. State, 64 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1953) (failure to correctly and intelligently instruct a jury as to each element of the offense which the State is required to prove cannot be treated with impunity under the guise of harmless error).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GERDS
v.
STATE.
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 5, 1953.
Jones.
Cited by 43 opinions | Published
Wolfe, Wightman & Rowe, Clearwater, for appellant.
Archie Clement, Tarpon Springs, for appellee.
JONES, Associate Justice.
Melvin W. Gerds, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, of the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: rape. He was, thereafter, duly sentenced to serve a term of five years in the State Penitentiary.
Appellant poses three questions for consideration by this Court however, we are of the opinion that a determination of the correctness of the Court's instruction on the law of the case relative to the elements of the crime upon which the defendant was on trial eliminates the necessity of delving into the other matters upon which a reversal of the Court's judgment is sought.
As stated, the defendant was tried and convicted upon the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: rape. Upon completion of all the testimony and argument of counsel, the Court instructed the jury as to the elements of said crime in the following words:
"Gentlemen, this defendant is charged in this information in entering the house with intent to commit a felony. A felony is an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or death. He is charged with breaking and entering this house and to find him guilty, it will be necessary for you to find that the defendant broke and entered the house. Now in order to constitute an unlawful breaking[*916] into a house, it doesn't mean that you have to take a sledgehammer and knock the walls in; it is sufficient if there is any force used to enter the house the opening of a door, an unlatched door, if it is closed, is sufficient to constitute breaking and entering within the meaning of the law."
"Now then, this defendant is not charged with rape; he is charged in this information with breaking and entering the house with intent to commit rape."
As the foregoing instructions constituted the Court's complete law of the case insofar as the material elements of the crime charged is concerned, it is apparent that the Court failed to fully and properly instruct the jury on the essential elements required to be proven under the issues presented by the information before conviction could legally be obtained.
This instruction excludes a fundamental and necessary ingredient of law required to substantiate the particular crime and such failure is tantamount to a denial of a fair and impartial trial to defendant in that the Court withheld from the jury's consideration the question of "intent" at the time of the alleged breaking and entering. Intent goes to the gist of the offense and is as much of the whole as any part thereof. For all that appears under this charge, the jury could have had for its sole determination the question of whether the defendant broke and entered the dwelling house of the prosecutrix and nothing else.
It is an inherent and indispensable requisite of a fair and impartial trial under the protective powers of our Federal and State Constitutions as contained in the due process of law clauses that a defendant be accorded the right to have a Court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence. Such protection afforded an accused cannot be treated with impunity under the guise of "harmless error". See Henderson v. State, 155 Fla. 487, 20 So.2d 649; Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798; Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 and others.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.