Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

496 So. 2d 983

496 So.2d 983

11 Fla.L.Weekly 2311

Docket No. 85-1994.

Smith v. State

Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 4, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-11-04

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1991

4 state decisions

Relies on Santoni v. United States · 344 So. 2d 244 - Wheeler v. State · 476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*984 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Michael Korvick and John H. Lipinski, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from judgments of conviction and sentences for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in giving Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.04(b), which, since the trial in this cause, has been disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court in Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1985). We agree and reverse for a new trial.

¶6Because we regard the instant case as a "pipeline" case, one in which the conviction was not final by trial or appeal at the time Yohn was decided, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of the state's contention that Yohn should not be applied retroactively; even if the state's contention is correct, the Yohn ruling would still be applicable to the instant case. See State v. Jones, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 1986); Dougan v. State, 470 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1985), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1499, 89 L.Ed.2d 900 (1986); Lowe v. Price, 437 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1983); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924, 99 S.Ct. 1254, 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979). Applying Yohn, then, to the instant case, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in giving the above-stated standard jury instruction. Indeed, the state appears to concede that Yohn, if applicable, requires a reversal in this case.

¶7The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, accordingly, reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

¶8Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/496/so2d/983 · .json · Public domain