Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 So. 3d 342

Horn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 11, 2009

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2009-09-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 2012

Relies on State v. Weaver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-09-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Michael Horn appeals his conviction for animal cruelty. 1 He correctly contends that it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the definition of “cruelty, torture, or torment.” The definition of these terms was unnecessary for a determination of Horn’s animal cruelty charge. However, no objection was made to these instructions at trial. Jury instructions are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, and, absent an objection at trial, can be raised on appeal only if fundamental error occurred. State v. Weaver, 957 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.2007). We conclude that no fundamental error occurred in this case, particularly given that the *343 jury was properly instructed on the elements of the charged offense.

¶2 AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
1

¶3 . § 828.12(2), Fla. Slat. (2007).

/17/so3d/342 · .json · Public domain