From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cummings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 22, 1992
597 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

In Cummings, the trial court failed to instruct the jury that a necessary element for convicting a person of complicity is the same culpability required for the commission of the offense.

Summary of this case from STATE v. HURD

Opinion

No. 91-00340.

April 22, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Edward H. Ward, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


We affirm Cummings' conviction for leaving the scene of an accident with injury, but we strike for being overbroad the special condition of probation on Hillsborough County's standard probation order form that states "you shall visit no bars."

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Cummings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 22, 1992
597 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

In Cummings, the trial court failed to instruct the jury that a necessary element for convicting a person of complicity is the same culpability required for the commission of the offense.

Summary of this case from STATE v. HURD
Case details for

Cummings v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES CUMMINGS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 22, 1992

Citations

597 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

State v. Woody

Additionally, even if the accused has knowledge of the commission of the crime, his presence at the scene is…

State v. Wilcoxen

She argues that her conduct differs little from that in Cummings where the appellate court held that mere…