Case Name: Linda McKinney AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-07-29
Citations: 406 So. 2d 1128
Docket Number: No. 80-1150
Parties: Linda McKinney AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DOWNEY, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 406
Pages: 1128–1132

Head Matter:
Linda McKinney AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-1150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 29, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1981.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and John R. Cullom, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of second degree murder. On appeal she argues that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury, as required, upon the maximum and minimum , penalties for the offense charged and relies upon Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1981). She contends that she preserved this point on appeal. We agree.
At trial appellant's counsel stated:
Judge, we have submitted to the Court, we have requested the Court read two special instructions.
The first instruction has to do with penalties.
Our basis for that is Murray versus State, 378 So.2d 111; Rule 3.390, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In response, the trial court said:
That contradicts one of the instructions in the standard jury instructions which states you are not to consider the consequences of your verdict.
I do not see how they can—
In Williams v. State, 395 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), this court said:
If a jury instruction is requested and the basis for the request verbalized to the court and made a part of the record, failure to object to rejection on the instruction or to repeat the grounds in the form of an objection does not preclude appellate review. The underlying purpose of Rule 3.390(d) has been met; the trial court is placed on notice that refusal to give the requested instruction may be error.
Here, appellant plainly verbalized to the trial court the basis for her request. Further, we hold that in this case the error was harmful and consequently need not consider whether the harmless error statute is applicable to the failure to instruct the jury upon the maximum and minimum penalties. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.