Opinion ID: 1615154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: And/Or Instructions

Text: Victorino 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 follows: TROY VICTORINO and/or JERONE HUNTER and/or MICHAEL SALAS. Victorino argues that the use of the and/or conjunction between the names of codefendants in the jury instructions was error because the jury may have convicted Victorino solely upon a finding that a codefendant's conduct satisfied an element of the charged offenses. Victorino objected to the use of and/or in the jury instructions for the charges of conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder, abuse of a dead human body, and burglary. The State correctly concedes that this issue was preserved, but argues that any error was harmless. Victorino, however, did not object to the use of and/ or in the jury instructions for felony murder or cruelty to animals. Accordingly, with regard to these instructions, the argument is not preserved. In Hunter, we acknowledged that use of the conjunction `and/or' in jury instructions is error. 8 So.3d at 1070. Similarly, in codefendant Salas's case, the Fifth District held that use of and/or was error, reasoning that the `and/or' conjunction may mislead the jury into believing it can convict the defendant based solely on the acts of his codefendant. Salas, 972 So.2d at 950. Consistent with this precedent, we hold that the trial court erred in using the and/or conjunction when it instructed the jury. Accordingly, with regard to Victorino's preserved claim, the question is whether giving the erroneous instructions was harmless. Randolph v. State, 853 So.2d 1051, 1065 (Fla.2003); Jennings v. State, 782 So.2d 853, 862-63 (Fla.2001). An error in a jury instruction is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the faulty instruction contributed to the verdict. Hunter, 8 So.3d at 1071 (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986)). In accordance with Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.12(c), the jury was instructed that the charges against each defendant, and the evidence applicable to that person, must be considered separately. The jury was further instructed that [a] finding of guilty or not guilty as to one must not affect your verdict as to any other of the crimes charged. Furthermore, the evidence of Victorino's involvement in the conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder, and burglary was overwhelming. See Hunter, 8 So.3d at 1071 (observing in harmless error analysis that [t]he evidence of Hunter's involvement in the conspiracy was overwhelming). And, while eyewitness testimony of abuse of a dead human body was limited to the testimony of Hunter and Salas, it is clear from the verdicts that the jury was able to differentiate between the defendants. Significantly, the jury acquitted Salas of all five counts regarding abuse of a dead human body, convicted Victorino of that offense in relation to victim Belanger, and convicted Hunter of that offense in relation to victims Gleason and Vega. See id. (stating in harmless error analysis that 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). As the Fifth District stated in Salas, it is the confluence of the instructions in their entirety, the evidence, and the individualized verdicts which render the error in the use of the `and/or' conjunction harmless in this prosecution. 972 So.2d at 954. Moreover, the jury was presented with individualized verdict forms and, in his closing arguments, Victorino's counsel argued that [t]here's three different verdict forms. Three separate verdict forms. You judge him, him, and him on their own individual testimony and evidence against them. On this record, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubtas we were in Hunter that the instructional error did not contribute to the verdicts. As stated previously, Victorino did not preserve his claim of error regarding the use of and/or in the jury instructions for felony murder or cruelty to animals. Thus, he cannot obtain relief unless giving the faulty instructions constitutes fundamental error. 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.' Hunter, 8 So.3d at 1070 (quoting Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038, 1042 (Fla.2008)). In Hunter, we determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the instructional error of using and/or in the felony murder instruction was not fundamental. Id. As in Hunter, the evidence at trial including the testimony of Brandon Graham, the forensic evidence, and the testimony of codefendants Salas and Hunter not only revealed that Victorino devised the plan to break into the Telford Lane residence and kill the occupants, but also that Victorino was present and participated in killing the occupants. Moreover, 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. Furthermore, with regard to the cruelty to animals instruction, the jury convicted Victorino of this charge and acquitted his codefendants. Accordingly, we hold that under the totality of these circumstances the improper use of and/or in the felony murder, cruelty to animals, and principals instructions does not constitute fundamental error.