ANTHONY WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A jury instruction that includes language about escaping from the immediate scene of a robbery in a felony murder charge does not add an uncharged crime of escape when the language derives from standard jury instructions and does not reference the escape statute.
[1] A jury instruction in a felony murder case that references escaping from the immediate scene of the underlying felony does not constitute an improper addition of an uncha…
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 intelligence“The 'escaping' reference has nothing to do with the escape statute. It comes from Criminal Standard Jury Instruction 7.3c, which states, '[The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]'”
COPE, J., explaining the source and meaning of the jury instruction language regarding escaping
Williams was indicted for felony murder while committing a robbery. At trial, the jury received an instruction that the death could have occurred whil…
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 Accomplice Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
concurring.
I concur in affirming the order denying postconviction relief but respectfully disagree with the trial court’s reasoning. Leaving aside other issues which may bar relief, the reference in the jury instruction to “escaping” is not a reference to the uncharged crime of escape.
Defendant-appellant Anthony Williams was indicted for felony murder while committing a robbery. The defendant claims that the trial court gave a jury instruction which added the crime of escape as a second basis for the felony murder charge.
The language that the defendant complains about is the following:
2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams was engaged in the commission of robbery or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams was attempting to commit robbery, or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams, or an accomplice was escaping from the immediate scene of the robbery.
The “escaping” reference has nothing to do with the escape statute. It comes from Criminal Standard Jury Instruction 7.3c, *664which states, “[The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]” Standard Jury Instructions — Criminal Cases No. 92-1, 608 So.2d 1175, 1189 (Fla.1992).
The defendant’s argument — that the jury instruction added an escape charge which was not contained in the indictment — is without merit.
COPE, J.,
concurring.
I concur in affirming the order denying postconviction relief but respectfully disagree with the trial court’s reasoning. Leaving aside other issues which may bar relief, the reference in the jury instruction to “escaping” is not a reference to the uncharged crime of escape.
Defendant-appellant Anthony Williams was indicted for felony murder while committing a robbery. The defendant claims that the trial court gave a jury instruction which added the crime of escape as a second basis for the felony murder charge.
The language that the defendant complains about is the following:
2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams was engaged in the commission of robbery or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams was attempting to commit robbery, or the death occurred as a consequence of and while Anthony Williams, or an accomplice was escaping from the immediate scene of the robbery.
The “escaping” reference has nothing to do with the escape statute. It comes from Criminal Standard Jury Instruction 7.3c, which states, “[The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]” Standard Jury Instructions — Criminal Cases No. 92-1, 608 So. 2d 1175, 1189 (Fla.1992).
The defendant’s argument — that the jury instruction added an escape charge which was not contained in the indictment — is without merit.