Ortega v. State

The judgment appealed from is affirmed upon the holding that (1) the instructions as a whole clearly and adequately enabled the jury to consider the theory of the defense: McKinney v. State, 428 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Leonard v. State, 423 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Scott v. State, 396 So.2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Marcum v. State, 379 So.2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1980); Diez v. State, 359 So.2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), (2) the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury verdict: Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981), aff’d, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); S.W. v. State, 431 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jackson v. State, 419 So.2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Knight v. State, 392 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1981), and (3) jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial court; instructions must be complete on the subject involved: Griffin v. State, 414 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1982); Henry v. State, 359 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1978); Cole v. State, 353 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Affirmed.