Opinion ID: 1603389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: And/Or in the Jury Instructions

Text: Next, Hunter raises instructional error during the guilt phase. For each of the instructions defining a criminal offense, where an element provided for inclusion of the name of the defendant, the trial court instructed as TROY VICTORINO and/or JERONE HUNTER and/or MICHAEL SALAS. On appeal, Hunter argues that this use of the conjunction and/or between the defendants' names resulted in reversible error. And even if there was not a proper objection raised, the error was fundamental. His contention is that given this instruction, the jury may have convicted him solely upon a finding that a codefendant's conduct satisfied an element of the offense. Hunter is not entitled to relief on this claim. First, of the offenses for which he was convicted, Hunter only preserved the objection as to criminal conspiracy and abuse of a dead human body. Hunter expressly did not join in the objections made by other counsel to the use of and/or in the first-degree murder instructions and the burglary instruction. Moreover, he did not object to the felony murder instructions on the basis now asserted. [10] We recently addressed the propriety of using and/or in jury instructions in cases involving multiple defendants. Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008). In Garzon, the three defendants, each charged with criminal conspiracy, armed burglary of a dwelling, armed robbery, three counts of armed kidnapping, and extortion, did not object to the instructions using the conjunction but instead, two codefendants raised the issue on direct appeal. Id. at 1039. According to the defendants, the use of `and/or' allowed the jury to convict the defendants based on a codefendant committing some or all of the elements of the charged crimes. Id. at 1041. We reiterated that use of the conjunction and/or in jury instructions is error. Id. at 1045 (citing Cochrane v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 107 Fla. 431, 145 So. 217, 218 (1932)). However, because the defendants failed to object, the question presented was whether the error was fundamental. Id. at 1042. In Garzon, we answered the question in the negative, looking to the totality of the record. Id. at 1043. Fundamental error in a jury instruction requires that the error reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error. Id. at 1042 (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991)). Here, because Hunter failed to object to the use of and/or as it related to the murder instructions (both premeditated and felony) and the armed burglary instructions, we must determine if the error was fundamental. Under the totality of the circumstances, the error was not fundamental. In addition to the erroneous instructions, the jury was instructed on both the law of principals and multiple defendants. It was then instructed upon and provided verdict forms that were individualized both as to the defendants and in respect to the crimes charged. Furthermore, in his closing argument, Hunter's counsel focused on his client's actions and discussed how a verdict as to guilt for one defendant did not mean that the same verdict had to be arrived at for the others. Hunter's counsel explained that the evidence was to be weighed as to each defendant as to each count. The State briefly addressed the principals instruction, explaining that if someone helps someone else commit a crime, then they must be treated the same as if  the actual perpetrator. The evidence at trial, the testimony of Brandon Graham, the forensic evidence, the testimony of codefendant Salas, Hunter's pretrial statements to law enforcement officers, and his own trial testimony strongly tied Hunter to these crimes. Under the totality of these circumstances, the improper use of and/or in the murder and armed burglary instructions does not constitute fundamental error. As stated earlier, the and/or error was preserved as to the criminal conspiracy and abuse of a dead human body counts. If the error is preserved, the issue on appeal is whether the instructional error was harmless. Randolph v. State, 853 So.2d 1051, 1065 (Fla.2003); Jennings v. State, 782 So.2d 853, 862-863 (Fla.2001). An error is deemed harmless where there is no reasonable possibility that the faulty instruction contributed to the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Here, the error was harmless. The evidence of Hunter's involvement in the conspiracy was overwhelming. And it is clear from the verdicts on the abuse of a dead human body counts that the jury was able to differentiate between the defendants, having acquitted Salas of all five counts, convicted Victorino of that offense in relation to victim Belanger, and convicted Hunter of that offense in relation to victims Gleason and Vega. See Salas v. State, 972 So.2d 941, 952-954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). [11] As a result, we deny relief on this claim.