Weddell v. State

Richard Bryant WEDDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 27, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-03-27

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2012

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“we can think of no valid policy reason why a trial judge should be permitted to comment on evidence of possession of recently stolen property as opposed to any other evidence adduced at trial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 853 So. 2d 498 - Walker v. State

“IS THE FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON "POSSESSION OF PROPERTY RECENTLY STOLEN" AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 853 So. 2d 498 - Walker v. State

Relies on 594 So. 2d 292 - Fenelon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-03-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Richard M. Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3BARFIELD, C.J.

¶4We affirm Weddell's conviction but certify to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public importance the following question:

IS THE FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON "POSSESSION OF PROPERTY RECENTLY STOLEN" AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE?

¶5Paraphrasing the opinion in Fenelon v. State,594 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla.1992), we can think of no valid policy reason why a trial judge should be permitted to comment on evidence of possession of recently stolen property as opposed to any other evidence adduced at trial.

¶6ALLEN and BROWNING, JJ., concur.