Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State
116 So. 3d 394
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2012Background
- CBI and Smith were convicted of two counts of first-degree grand theft and two counts of organized scheme to defraud in a consolidated trial.
- Evidence focused on alleged fraudulent PCW removal and invoicing, and on theft of jet fuel from multiple sources at the Miami International Airport Fuel Farm.
- Contracts between ASIG/Miami-Dade County and CBI did not define PCW or distinguish it from contaminated jet fuel.
- Key witness Schneir testified to broadened theft timelines and to fake manifests; the State knew of trial-response shifts but delayed disclosure.
- Defendants argued good faith belief (mistake as to entitlement to tank 21 contents) negated intent; defense sought jury instructions on good faith, contract interpretation, and PCW definitions.
- Trial court refused requested instructions, gave a generic theft instruction, and admitted PCW definitions as court exhibits; verdicts included grand theft and organized scheme questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good faith defense instruction proper? | CBI and Smith have legally valid good faith defense. | State argued no evidence supported good faith; instruction would mislead. | Reversible error; instruction should have been given. |
| Definition of PCW should be given as instruction? | PCW definition central to defense; regulation-based term needed for jury guidance. | Regulatory definition not required as theory of defense. | Reversible error; verbatim PCW definition should have been given. |
| Disagreement over contract interpretation must be instructed? | Ambiguity in contracts susceptible to extrinsic facts; jury must resolve. | Contract interpretation is for civil context; no criminal basis to convict. | Reversible error; instruction on contract interpretation is proper. |
| Richardson discovery hearing required? | Defense raised possible discovery violation; Richardson inquiry needed. | No timely objection; any inquiry post-trial was sufficient; harmless. | Reversible error; failure to conduct timely/adequate Richardson hearing violated due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla.2001) (requirements for giving special jury instructions; need for non-confusing, correct law)
- Gardner v. State, 480 So.2d 91 (Fla.1985) (entitled to jury instruction on applicable defense law; factual support needed)
- Dreisch v. State, 436 So.2d 1051 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (good faith instruction denied when no honest belief shown)
- Weller v. State, 590 So.2d 923 (Fla.1991) (entrapment defense context; distinguishes entrapment applicability to counts)
- Lucas v. State, 376 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1979) (failure to timely object and request Richardson; preservation principles)