121 So. 3d 524
Fla.2013Background
- Victim’s home was burglarized; several electronics were stolen. Williams’ fingerprints were found and he sold some items to a pawnshop the next day; the victim identified the sold items.
- Williams was charged with burglary, grand theft, dealing in stolen property, and providing false information to a pawnbroker.
- Trial court denied Williams’ requested jury instruction modeled on § 812.025 (which bars dual convictions for theft and dealing in stolen property in one scheme), concluding no approved standard instruction existed and reserving the issue for the court.
- Jury convicted Williams of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property; the trial court later dismissed the grand theft conviction as subsumed and sentenced Williams on dealing in stolen property (and other counts).
- On appeal the Second District affirmed dismissal of the grand theft count, held the statute’s procedural requirement unenforceable as a jury instruction, and certified conflict with the Fourth District (Kiss). The Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial courts must instruct jury under § 812.025 when both theft and dealing in stolen property are submitted | Williams: Yes — jury must be instructed it cannot convict of both when offenses arise from one scheme | State/Trial court: No — statute language is not an adequate jury instruction and courts should resolve selection as a matter of law | Yes. Trial courts must instruct jury on § 812.025 when both counts are submitted |
| Whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial if jury convicts of both counts after court denies § 812.025 instruction | Williams: Denial prejudiced him; new trial required on theft and dealing counts | State: Harmless — appellate courts can reverse the lesser conviction without new trial; no prejudice | Yes. Because Williams requested the instruction and the error was not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to a new trial on the theft and dealing counts |
| Whether courts may select which conviction to enter post-verdict without jury guidance | Williams: Jury should perform the selection as trier of fact | State/Second DCA: Court can make the selection post-verdict; statute does not provide criteria for jury selection | Court: The trier of fact must be instructed and make the choice; trial courts cannot avoid giving the jury the § 812.025 instruction |
| Whether harmless-error review applies to failure to give § 812.025 instruction | Williams: Failure is not harmless when instruction was requested and dual convictions resulted | State/Dissent: Error harmless where the greater offense was affirmed and lesser vacated | Court: Harmless-error test applies; here State failed to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, so reversal is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2002) (§ 812.025 requires the trier of fact to choose between theft and dealing in stolen property based on defendant’s intent)
- Blackmon v. State, 121 So.3d 535 (Fla. 2013) (trial court error for failing to instruct jury on § 812.025; appellate practice of reversing lesser offense upheld when instruction not requested)
- Kiss v. State, 42 So.3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (failure to instruct jury on § 812.025 disadvantages defendant; conflicts with Second District’s approach)
- Ridley v. State, 407 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (trial judge should instruct jury that guilty verdicts cannot be returned on both theft and dealing in stolen property)