From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McBride v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 15, 1992
604 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

holding that trial court did not err by giving standard instruction, noting that appellant did not object and appears to have agreed to substance of instruction given

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State

Opinion

No. 92-666.

September 15, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leonard E. Glick, J.

Friend, Fleck Gettis, South Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.


We reject both points raised in this appeal from a conviction for resisting arrest without violence. First, the trial court correctly granted the state's request to instruct the jury as to that crime as a permissive lesser included offense of resisting arrest with violence, which was alleged in the information. State v. Johnson, 601 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1992); Tice v. State, 569 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Second, the court did not err in charging the jury, in accordance with Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) Resisting Officer Without Violence, and section 901.15, Florida Statutes (1991) that " an arrest and detention constitutes [the] lawful execution of a legal duty." [e.s.] This generic and perfectly correct statement of law did not involve the vice of case-specificity which was involved in Wimbley v. State, 567 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the court stated that "the police were in lawful execution of a legal duty at the time the alleged offenses took place" [e.s.], and Dion v. State, 564 So.2d 618, 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), where the jury was told that "the police officer was acting lawfully when he arrested appellant." [e.s.] See also Kirschenbaum v. State, 592 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). On this basis, we follow Stayer v. State, 590 So.2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which is directly on point, and, for the same reason, disagree with Scott v. State, 594 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The distinction drawn by Judge Warner in Stayer, which was professedly unfathomable to the distinguished author of Scott, seems quite obvious to us. Moreover, McBride did not object and indeed appears to have agreed to the substance of the instruction below. See Squires v. State, 450 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1984).

There appears to be no authority for Scott's departure from the earlier panel decision in Stayer without the intervention of an en banc court. See In Re Rule 9.331, 416 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

McBride v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 15, 1992
604 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

holding that trial court did not err by giving standard instruction, noting that appellant did not object and appears to have agreed to substance of instruction given

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State
Case details for

McBride v. State

Case Details

Full title:DIANE McBRIDE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 15, 1992

Citations

604 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Starks v. State

The instruction should not have made reference to Mr. Starks. See Hierro v. State, 608 So.2d 912, 914-15…

State v. Anderson

PER CURIAM. We have for review Anderson v. State, 629 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), in which the Fourth…