Case ID: so2d_686/html/0573-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHAW, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Richard VARIANCE, Respondent.
    No. 87916.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Dec. 26, 1996.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for Petitioner.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Allen J. DeWeese, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for Respondent.
   SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Variance v. State, 687 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), on motion for certification, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1052 (Fla. 4th DCA May 1, 1996), wherein the district court certified two questions. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Variance, based on State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla.1996), wherein we held that the giving of a nearly identical instruction did not constitute fundamental error and required a contemporaneous objection to be preserved for review.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. 
      
      . The court certified:
      1) Does the "jury instruction given in this case impermissibly reduce the reasonable doubt standard below the protections of the due process clause? ■
      2) If so, is such an instruction fundamental error?