From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Variance

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 26, 1996
686 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1996)

Opinion

No. 87916.

December 26, 1996.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Fourth District — Case No. 94-3019, Broward County.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Petitioner.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Allen J. DeWeese, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Respondent.


We have for review Variance v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D79 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 3), on motion for certification, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1052 (Fla. 4th DCA May 1, 1996), wherein the district court certified two questions. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Variance based on State v. Wilson, No. 87,575 (Fla. Dec. 26, 1996), wherein we held that the giving of a nearly identical instruction did not constitute fundamental error and required a contemporaneous objection to be preserved for review.

The court certified:
1) Does the jury instruction given in this case impermissibly reduce the reasonable doubt standard below the protections of the due process clause?
2) If so, is such an instruction fundamental error?

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Variance

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 26, 1996
686 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1996)
Case details for

State v. Variance

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, vs. RICHARD VARIANCE, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Dec 26, 1996

Citations

686 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1996)