Veyberman v. State
The Fourth District affirmed a burglary conviction, holding that defense counsel's affirmative suggestion of the combined jury instruction (merging 'entering' and 'remaining in' as alternative means of burglary) waived any claim that the instruction was fundamental error. Judge Warner wrote separately to question whether such a combined instruction actually risks a non-unanimous verdict at all, arguing that under Schad v. Arizona and Mansfield v. State, unanimity as to alternative means of committing a single offense is not constitutionally required, and that Florida's own case law (State v. Waters) treats 'entering or remaining in' as a single element of burglary rather than separate elements.
Key facts
- Defendant Veyberman was convicted of burglary in the trial court.
- The trial court instructed the jury on burglary using a combined instruction that presented 'entering' and 'remaining in' as alternative means of committing the offense.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
While the majority opinion applies the well-settled invited-error doctrine, Judge Warner's concurrence is notable for practitioners litigating burglary jury-instruction challenges: it directly calls into question the… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.