From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 25, 2005
903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 2D04-1008.

May 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Circuit, Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald N. Ficarrotta, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tonja R. Vickers, Special Assistant Public Defender, and Timothy Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Rasheed Randolph appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We conclude that the trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury, because it included the conjunction "and/or" between Randolph's name and the name of his codefendant in essential jury instructions. We reverse.

We do not find merit in Randolph's argument that the trial court erred in admitting Detective Garfield's testimony regarding her previous contact with Randolph, and we affirm that point without discussion.

In Davis v. State, 895 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court reversed the convictions of Randolph's codefendant, Sherrey Davis, based on the jury instructions at issue. Because the instructions given for Randolph were identical to those given for Davis, we also reverse Randolph's convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial.

Randolph and Davis were tried together.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Randolph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 25, 2005
903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Randolph v. State

Case Details

Full title:Rasheed RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 25, 2005

Citations

903 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Zeno v. State

This court has reached the same conclusion in subsequent decisions involving the same or similar jury…

ZENO v. STATE

This court has reached the same conclusion in subsequent decisions involving the same or similar jury…