ZACKERY HOLIDAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court did not commit fundamental error by instructing the jury on the standard entrapment defense as it existed in 1997, even though the instruction was later changed in 1998, because entrapment is a defense rather than an essential element of the crime charged.
Failure to give an entrapment instruction conforming to the current standard does not constitute fundamental error when entrapment is a defense rather than an essential element of the crime.
[1] An entrapment jury instruction that does not conform to subsequently adopted standards does not constitute fundamental error when entrapment constitutes a defense rather…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZackery Holiday was tried in 1997 for an offense and received the standard entrapment jury instruction in effect at that time. The standard instructio…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred fundamentally by giving the jury the standard instruction on entrapment in effect in 1997, when this offense and appellant’s trial took place. The standard instruction was changed effective July, 1998, and is now consistent with the supreme court’s analysis of the entrapment defense found in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). See Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 723 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1998). See also Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appeal dismissed, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1998). It is undisputed that no objection was raised at trial to the standard jury instruction.
In Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993), the supreme court ruled that “[fjailure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error.” Since the entrapment instruction pertains to a defense rather than to an essential element of the crime charged, no fundamental error occurred. We recognize that the Fourth District recently ruled to the contrary in Miller v. State, 723 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and accordingly certify conflict with that decision.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Zackery Holiday v. State, 753 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2000)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Holiday v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), which certified conflict with Miller v. State, 723 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), as to whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury with the then-current standard instruction on entrapment when s…
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gordon v. State, 827 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Braswell v. State, 804 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). . This practice contradicts Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(a), which requires the use of standard forms for judgments and sentences "by all courts.” . Irrespective o…
-
Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…tion of probation. See Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). This court warned the Tenth Circuit about the continuing use of such orders months before the Tenth Circuit entered this order on August 10, 1999. See Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We issued yet another opinion, after Peterson and before the Tenth Circuit entered this order, holding Memos of Sentence inadequate to serve as orders of revocation. See Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 19…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)
- Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1993)
- STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIM. CASES (97-2), 723 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1998)
- Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- State v. Vazquez, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1998)
- Elwood J. Hunnewell, Jr. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 723 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Miller v. State, 723 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)