Case Name: John J. RUZICKA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee; Douglas J. LEIGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-04-27
Citations: 430 So. 2d 528
Docket Number: Nos. 82-1123, 82-1150
Parties: John J. RUZICKA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Douglas J. LEIGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 430
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
John J. RUZICKA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Douglas J. LEIGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 82-1123, 82-1150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 27, 1983.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1983.
Douglas S. Lambeth and Gary M. Dunkel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marlyn J. Altman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants' convictions were substantially predicated on circumstantial evidence. Nonetheless, we affirm on the authority of Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla.1982). Although we find that the trial court's refusal to instruct on circumstantial evidence did not constitute error, we wish to note that a trial court retains discretion to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence if the court "feels that such is necessary under the peculiar facts of a specific case." See, In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Fla. unpublished opinion, Case Nos. 56,734 and 58,799, filed April 16, 1981) [6 FLW 305]; reprinted in pertinent part, Perdue v. State, 421 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.