JANELLE R. WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1983-11-02
No. 83-1034
OTT, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
439 So. 2d 1050 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The trial court did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction on petit theft when the evidence could not reasonably support a value less than $100.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was charged with grand theft for shoplifting merchandise valued at $250.96. The value of the stolen merchandise was undisputed at trial. App…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Janelle R. Watson was charged by information with grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981), after she allegedly shoplifted merchandise from a local department store. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted as charged, placed on five years probation, and ordered to pay a $750 fine. This appeal followed timely.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to give appellant’s requested jury instruction on the offense of petit theft. We affirm.

A security officer for the department store testified that the value of the stolen merchandise was $250.96. This testimony remained unrebutted and undisputed. Thus value was not an issue at trial. Under these circumstances, where the evidence adduced at trial could not reasonably support the conclusion that the stolen property had a value of less than $100, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction. See State v. Hudson, 373 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1979) (citing State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1979)). See also In re Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1981).

AFFIRMED.

OTT, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cannon v. State, 456 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
    …te, 440 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) where the court interpreted revised rule 3.510 to not require instruction on a lesser included offense “that is not a necessarily lesser included offense of the crime charged.” Id. at 10. But cf, Watson v. State, 439 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Because the trial court refused to instruct on a necessarily lesser included offense one step removed from the crime for which defendant was convicted (Count IV, aggravated assault) that conviction is reversed and is remanded fo…
  • Wimberly v. State, 476 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …nse of petit theft in a grand theft prosecution when the undisputed evidence at that trial indicated that the value of the stolen property was $250.96, even though petit theft is a necessarily lesser included offense of grand theft, Watson v. State, 439 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we certify the following question as being of great public importance, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v): IF THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT OF A NECESSARILY LESSER INC…
  • O'Patrick v. State, 546 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Hudson, 373 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1979); State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1979); Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975); Watson v. State, 439 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw