Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

allowing the use of photographs during voir dire. Vining, supra.
There is no basis for reversal.
III. THE DENIAL OF THE LIMITING INSTRUCTION
On pages 46-51 of his Initial Brief, Hoskins argues that he
is entitled to relief because the trial court denied his special
requested jury instruction concerning the consideration of
victim impact evidence. The issue is not that the “victim impact
instruction” was not given -– it was given along with the rest
of the jury instructions. (R1660). Instead, Hoskins’ claim is
that the instruction was given at the wrong time. Under settled
Florida law, the standard of review applied to a decision to
give or withhold a jury instruction is whether the trial court
abused its discretion. James v. State, 695 So. 2d 1229, 1236
(Fla. 1997) (noting that a trial court has wide discretion in
instructing the jury). There is no reason that the issue
contained in this case should be reviewed under a different
standard.
There is no claim that the jury was not properly instructed
–- the standard jury instruction was given at the close of the
penalty phase. 15 In Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2000),
15
The instruction given to the jury was the one that was approved
in Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432, 438 (Fla. 1995), Alston v.
State, 723 So. 2d 148, 160 (Fla. 1998), and Farina v. State, 801
So. 2d 44, 52-53 (Fla. 2001).
28