SMITH
v.
STATE
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's failure to instruct the jury on the reasonable doubt standard and burden of proof using Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.7 or a similar instruction constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal.
[1] Failure to instruct a jury on the reasonable doubt standard and burden of proof, using Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.7 or a similar instruction, constitu…
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 trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.7 Plea of Not Guilty; Reasonable Doubt, and Burden of Proof, or any similar instruction, constituted fundamental error”
Court's holding on the basis for reversal
Joseph Smith was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence. The t…
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 Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
LAGOA, Associate Judge.
Joseph Smith (“Smith”) appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence, arguing that his trial was fundamentally flawed due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt. As the State correctly concedes, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.7 Plea of Not Guilty; Reasonable Doubt, and Burden of Proof, or any similar instruction, constituted fundamental error. See Cavagnaro v. State, 117 So. 3d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (finding fundamental error where the jury charge did not include Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.7 or any similar instruction); see also Curry v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258, 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Burnette v. State, 103 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we reverse Smith’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phelps v. State, 317 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
Montrell Williams v. State, 274 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Farley Bernard Curry, Jr. v. State, 169 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Burnette v. State, 103 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Cavagnaro v. State, 117 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Arias v. State, 117 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)