SHARON M. NIBLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sharon Niblack was convicted of second-degree murder, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to provide a complete reinstruction on manslaughter that included justifiable homicide, which is a necessary component of the manslaughter charge.
Yes. The trial court must instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide to provide a complete definition of manslaughter, even where there is no evidence to support such defenses, because manslaughter cannot be adequately defined without such instruction. The omission constituted reversible error.
[1] A trial court must instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide to provide a complete definition of manslaughter, even if there is no evidence to support a finding of j…
[2] A jury's request for clarification on the difference between murder and manslaughter necessitates a complete reinstruction on all relevant homicide offenses.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court must instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide in order to provide a complete definition of manslaughter, which is a residual offense”
Establishes the core legal principle that manslaughter instructions must include justifiable and excusable homicide elements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury deliberations in Niblack's murder trial, the jury requested clarification on the difference between second-degree murder and manslaughter.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Residual Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Sharon M. Niblack contends that the trial court erred in failing to provide a complete reinstruction on manslaughter during her jury trial for murder in the second degree. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
The record reflects that the jury interrupted its deliberations to request “clarification of the difference between second-degree murder and manslaughter.” The trial judge, who initially had instructed on second degree murder, manslaughter under section 782.11, and justifiable homicide, repeated his instruction on second degree murder and manslaughter but did not reinstruct on justifiable homicide. Defense counsel raised a timely objection to the omission of “any explanation of justification, any explanation of defense.”
As the supreme court’s holding in Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965), makes clear, the trial court must instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide in order to provide a complete definition of manslaughter, which is a residual offense. See § 782.07, Fla.Stat. (1981); Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230, 231 (Fla.1979) (homicide committed while resisting another’s unlawful act is punishable under section 782.11 only if not excusable or not justifiable). Under this court’s holding in Pouk v. State, 359 So. 2d 929, 930 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), both instructions must be given “even where there is no evidence to support a finding of justifiable or excusable homicide because manslaughter cannot be adequately defined without such an instruction.” Accord Delaford v. State, 449 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
In the instant case, appellant objected to the trial court’s failure to reinstruct on justifiable homicide; thus, this issue has been preserved for appellate review. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 1978) (timely and explicit objection necessary to preserve alleged reinstruction error for appellate review). Accordingly, we reverse Niblack’s conviction for second degree murder on this basis and remand for a new trial.
Appellant has not provided us with a transcript of the charge conference, and, consequently, we cannot determine why the trial court did not instruct on excusable homicide in even its initial manslaughter instruction. Defense counsel’s limited objection to the court’s reinstruction suggests, however, that counsel acquiesced in the omission. In any event, appellant raises no complaint concerning the initial instruction, and we feel confident that a complete manslaughter instruction will be given upon retrial.
For purposes of retrial, we note that appellant’s contention concerning the inadmissibility of Michelle Mobley’s testimony, in its present posture, is well taken. We trust that the state will follow the applicable rules of evidence before attempting to introduce Ms. Mobley’s testimony again.
We have considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal and have found it to be without merit.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)…r included offense constitutes prejudicial error), a substantial number of murder convictions have been set aside because of a Hedges error in the manslaughter instruction. E.g., Walker v. State, 520 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Niblack v. State, 451 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Pouk v. State, 359 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In Hedges, the failure to refer to justifiable and excusable homicide while defining manslaughter occurred when the jury requested a reinstruction on the different degrees of murd…
-
Telesford Alejo v. State, 483 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…an instruction defining justifiable and excusable homicide is necessary to provide a complete instruction on the crime of manslaughter. Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965); Brown v. State, 467 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Niblack v. State, 451 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Pouk v. State, 359 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In addition, our supreme court has said that the term “culpable negligence” must be defined as part of the jury instruction on manslaughter. Campbell v. State, 306 So. 2d 482 (Fla…
-
Sammie Lee Harris v. State, 580 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nstructing the jury); Brown v. State, 467 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 467 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1985) (court refused to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide in connection with instruction on manslaughter); Niblack v. State, 451 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (trial court, on reinstructing jury on difference between second-degree murder and manslaughter, failed, over timely objection by defense counsel, to reinstruct the jury on justifiable homicide); Pouk v. State, 359 So. 2d 929 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1979)
- Pouk v. State, 359 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Delaford v. State, 449 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)