126 So. 3d 1107
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Robert Funchess was convicted of petit theft after jury trial.
- Funchess testified that he believed he had permission to take scrap from a dumpster behind a restaurant under renovation.
- A Hispanic man allegedly told him to take anything in the dumpster; Funchess planned to return with a larger load the next day.
- The next day, Waddell, the property owner, confronted him and stated there was no permission; officers later arrested Funchess.
- Photographs from the crime scene were disclosed late, triggering a Richardson inquiry; the court found no deliberate withholding and no demonstrated prejudice.
- During trial, Funchess sought a jury instruction on his good-faith defense, which the court refused, and this issue is central to the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a good-faith defense instruction | Funchess contends the good-faith-permission theory was supported by the evidence and not covered by standard theft instructions. | State argues standard instruction suffices and the requested instruction was unnecessary. | Reversed; trial error in refusing good-faith instruction; remanded for new trial. |
| Whether late-disclosed photographs were admissible and prejudicial | State asserts no deliberate failure to disclose and no prejudice to defense. | Funchess argues the late disclosure violated discovery and required prejudice analysis. | Moot due to remand for new trial; issues on prejudice reserved. |
| Whether the defendant could be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement | State maintains cross-examination limits are proper and prior statement timing is immaterial. | Funchess contends impeachment of Waddell with timing of the offer is relevant to credibility. | Reversed; on retrial, allow impeachment if consistent with prior statement about timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quick v. State, 46 So.3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (entitlement to instruction on theory of defense when supported by evidence)
- Alfaro v. State, 837 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (good faith belief in right to possession is defense to theft)
- Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (support for good-faith possession defense)
- Dorsey v. State, 74 So.3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (three elements for special jury instruction)
- Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla.2001) (standard for special instruction sufficiency)
- Coxwell v. State, 361 So.2d 148 (Fla.1978) (cross-examination breadth and relevance)
- Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla.1953) (cross-examination scope principle)
- Romero v. State, 901 So.2d 260 (Fla.4th DCA 2005) (impeachment and credibility rights)
- Stotler v. State, 834 So.2d 940 (Fla.4th DCA 2003) (cross-examination subject matter admissibility)