Wilson v. State

James Wilson appeals his conviction of robbery, and raises two issues. First, he contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion for a cautionary jury instruction after the court misinstructed the jury on the difference between theft and robbery. We have carefully reviewed the statement of the court in the context of the record and find no error in denying appellant’s motion. The circumstances of this case are simply not analogous to either Raulerson v. State, 102 So.2d 281 (Fla.1958) or Lester v. State, 458 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), relied on by Wilson.

We find merit in…