932 So. 2d 408 - Bryant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The State also argues that, even if the trial court .did err in instructing the jury, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal because defense counsel failed to object to the instructions as. given, While objections with regard to. jury instructions are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991), the objectives of this, rule are satisfied “when the record shows clearly and unambiguously that a request was made for a specific instruction and that .the trial court clearly understood the re quest and just as clearly denied the request.” State v. Heathcoat, 442 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1983). This court, as well as other Florida courts, has repeatedly applied this rule to hold that the issue of failure to instruct on a lesser-ineluded offense was properly preserved once the instruction was requested, regardless of counsel’s failure to object either after the request was denied or after the instructions were given. See, e.g., Flint v. State 463 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In this case, defense counsel properly preserved the issue for appeal by requesting an instruction on the lesser-ineluded offense of battery despite the fact that counsel arguably did not specifically protest the trial court’s denial of that request.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wong v. State