Hot off the press – State confesses error – 4th DCA orders new trial

Christopher Parsons was convicted and sentenced for providing false information to a pawnbroker and for dealing in stolen property.  Parsons appealed, arguing that fundamental error occurred because the jury verdict was possibly not unanimous. Based on the State’s confession of error, the Fourth District agreed and remanded the case for a retrial on those two charges. Parsons v. State, 2024 WL 24810, (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Perley v. State, 947 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)).

The State alleged that Parsons sold stolen tools to a pawn shop in two separate sales on two separate dates in April 2021. In closing, the State prosecutor argued that the jury could convict Parsons on the pawnbroker and the stolen property charges based on either sale.

The State presented both sales to the jury and argued that a guilty verdict could be found on the single counts based on either sale.

“As a state constitutional matter, a criminal conviction requires a unanimous verdict in Florida.” Shahgodary v. State, 336 So. 3d 8, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting Robinson v. State, 881 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). If a jury is allowed “to deliberate on two separate instances of [a crime] where [defendant] was only charged with one count of [the crime]”, fundamental error occurs due to the possibility of a verdict that is not unanimous. Perley, 947 So. 2d at 674.

The jury unanimously found Parsons guilty on the two counts, but it was impossible to know whether the jury unanimously agreed on which sale supported the verdict, as some jurors could have found the first sale supported the charges, even while other jurors could have found the second sale supported the charges. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that fundamental error occurred, requiring a new trial on those charges.

In Perley, the defendant had escaped from the custody of police on two separate occasions, but the State charged the defendant with only one count of escape. Perley at 674.

The State argued that the jury could convict based on either act of escape.

Id.  In reversing, the Fourth District noted that fundamental error occurred because the jury was allowed “to deliberate on two separate instances of escape where Perley was only charged with one count of escape.” Id. Because of the error, the Court held it was impossible to know whether or not the jurors were unanimous in their decision “as some members of the jury could have determined that one incident constituted escape, while others on the jury could have determined that the other incident constituted escape, rather than agreeing unanimously that the same incident constituted escape.” Id. at 674-675.

The State tried Parsons on single counts, but based each count on two separate sales. By arguing that a jury verdict could be based on either sale, the State created a possible scenario where the jurors may not have unanimously agreed which of the two sales constituted the crime charged, resulting in a verdict that is not unanimous.

“By allowing the State to tell the jury it could convict [Parsons] for either [sale], the trial court compromised the jury’s ability to render a unanimous verdict.” See id. at 674. Since it was impossible to know whether or not the jury was unanimous, the Fourth District reversed and remanded for a new trial as to the counts charging Parsons with giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property. See Perley, 947 So. 2d at 675.

Our law office stays up-to-date on the latest court decisions to best assist those who turn to us for the effective assistance of counsel to which everyone charged with a crime is constitutionally entitled.