Opinion ID: 1854863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the applicable analysis

Text: We have consistently held that not all error in jury instructions is fundamental error. Instructions [to the jury] . . . are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, and, absent an objection at trial, can be raised on appeal only if fundamental error occurred. Delva, 575 So.2d at 644; see, e.g., State v. Weaver, 957 So.2d 586, 588 (Fla.2007); Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366, 370 (Fla.2002). As we have noted, the sole exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement is fundamental error. Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 941 (Fla.2005); see also Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612, 629 (Fla.2006). We have explained that for jury instructions to constitute fundamental error, the error must 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. Delva, 575 So.2d at 644-45 (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). Further, `fundamental error occurs only when the omission is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to convict.' Failing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error. . . . Id. at 645 (citation omitted) (quoting Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862, 863 (Fla.1982)). [5]