Padilla v. State
212 So. 3d 491
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Edis Padilla was convicted by a jury of burglary of a dwelling and possession of burglary tools after entering a victim's home through the back door with another man, using power tools to remove the doorknob, triggering an alarm, looking around briefly, then leaving.
- Trial court instructed jury on burglary, including that the defendant must have entered with "intent to commit an offense other than burglary or trespass in a structure or conveyance," and later advised acquittal if evidence did not establish the entry was done with intent to commit "a burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools or an offense other than burglary or trespass."
- Defense did not object to the jury instructions at trial.
- On appeal Padilla argued the burglary instruction was circular/confusing because it suggested the State had to prove intent to commit "burglary" rather than an underlying separate offense.
- The Second District affirmed Padilla’s convictions, holding the instruction as given did not constitute fundamental error under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the burglary jury instruction was circular/confusing such that it was fundamental error | Padilla: instruction misled jury to require intent to commit "burglary" rather than intent to commit a separate underlying offense | State: instruction adequately required intent to commit an offense other than burglary or trespass; later phrasing did not change that requirement | Court: No fundamental error; initial correct phrasing required intent to commit an offense other than burglary/trespass and the later language did not alter that legal requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 188 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (held burglary instruction was erroneous and fundamental where jury could have been misled to require intent to commit burglary rather than a separate offense)
- Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (criticized circular burglary intent instruction that required a fully formed intent to commit "burglary")
- Freeman v. State, 787 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (held that an erroneous portion of a burglary instruction can be cured by a correct portion of the instruction)