Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is prejudiced. See Masaka, 4 So.3d at 1286; Wells, 967 So.2d at 419. In the instant case, there was no evidence offered that Appellant worked in conjunction with anyone else to commit the crimes. Such a theory was never argued before the jury, and the instruction on principals was neither requested by the State nor read in the original reading of the jury instructions. The instruction was only given after the jury presented the court with a question regarding its inability to determine whether Appellant was the actual shooter. Where there was no evidence offered that Appellant acted with anyone in committing the shootings, the trial court erred in reading the principals instruction. See Lovette v. State, 654 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Further, the error was not harmless in that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error (B) holding that trial court committed reversible error in not instructing jury to determine credibility of incriminating statements attributed to defendant by state trooper (C) holding that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on a principals theory because there was no evidence that the appellant acted in concert with anyone in committing the charged offenses (D) holding that there is no error in instructing the jury on alternative theories if there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed firstdegree murder (E) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial
Output (English): holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error