From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weddell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 27, 2001
780 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 1D99-2991.

Opinion filed March 27, 2001.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Judge Dedee S. Costello.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Richard M. Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


We affirm Weddell's conviction but certify to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public importance the following question:

IS THE FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON "POSSESSION OF PROPERTY RECENTLY STOLEN" AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE?

Paraphrasing the opinion in Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla. 1992), we can think of no valid policy reason why a trial judge should be permitted to comment on evidence of possession of recently stolen property as opposed to any other evidence adduced at trial.

Allen and Browning, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Weddell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 27, 2001
780 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Weddell v. State

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD BRYANT WEDDELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 27, 2001

Citations

780 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Walker v. State

Because of these three holdings, particularly Fenelon, the First District Court of Appeal has questioned…

Wright v. State

At trial, the jury was instructed that "[p]ossession of recently stolen property unless satisfactorily…