JAMES J. DOYLE, 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.
James Doyle was convicted of murder in the third degree and aggravated assault after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder. The court reversed the murder conviction due to a misleading jury instruction on the elements of third-degree murder that could have allowed conviction based on self-defense.
The jury instruction was misleading and constituted fundamental and reversible error. The instruction could have misled the jury into convicting the defendant of third-degree murder even if they accepted his self-defense theory, because it did not clearly require that the defendant be the person committing the aggravated assault from which he was escaping.
[1] A jury instruction that is misleading constitutes fundamental and reversible error.
[2] A jury instruction for third-degree murder must accurately reflect that the defendant must be engaged in the perpetration of a felony, not the victim.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 instruction was, or certainly could have been, misleading to the jury by suggesting that if they believed the defendant's version of self-defense, they would have to find the defendant guilty of murder in the third degree.”
Establishes the fundamental error in the jury instruction—it could mislead the jury into convicting even upon acceptance of self-defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDoyle was charged with first-degree murder of Bill Alderdice and attempted first-degree murder of Bill's brother Jim Alderdice. At trial, Doyle's defe…
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 Third Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
FEDER, RICHARD YALE, Associate Judge.
Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree of Bill Alderdice and attempted murder in the first degree of his brother Jim Alderdice. He was convicted of murder in the third degree of Bill and of aggravated assault of brother Jim. Error is alleged in the instruction to the jury on the elements of Murder, Third Degree. The charge, as given, was:
Before you can find the defendant guilty of murder in the third degree the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: one, again, William Alderdice is dead; two, the death occurred as a consequence of and while James Joseph Doyle was escaping from the commission of an aggravated assault; and, three, James Joseph Doyle was the person who actually killed William Alderdice. (emphasis supplied).
The difference between the above charge and the Standard Jury Instruction is the substitution of the italicized word “commission” above for the phrase “immediate scene.”
The Defendant alleges that the jury could have convicted him of murder in the third degree believing he was escaping from the commission of an aggravated assault by the victim upon the defendant. Since that was the exact scenario testified to by the defendant, and which was his defense to the charge of murder in the first degree, the harm becomes immediately apparent.
The jury returned with a request for “clarification of some wording in murder, third degree. The jury is not certain where it says something about the word ‘commission’.” At that time the defense attorney requested the Court to explain that the escape had to be from an aggravated assault committed by the defendant, and not on the defendant. Although no such explanation was given, it must be admitted in all candor that the Standard Jury Instruction does not give much assistance to the trial court and even if “immediate scene” were inserted for “commission,” as applied to the facts of this case, would not have helped. The instruction is an attempted restatement of section 782.04(4), Florida Statutes (1983). When in doubt, a return to the source seems appropriate. Thus,
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any: (the list of felonies is omitted as inapplicable) is murder in the third degree....
The operative phrase is obviously “by a person engaged in the perpetration of.”
By finding the defendant NOT guilty of murder in the first or second degree, a reasonable hypothesis can be made that the jury accepted the defendant’s defense of being assaulted by the victim. (The aggravated assault conviction for the attack on Jim Alderdice cannot be involved as that occurred after the murder was a fact). The instruction was, or certainly could have been, misleading to the jury by suggesting that if they believed the defendant’s version of self-defense, they would have to find the defendant guilty of murder in the third degree. The giving of a misleading instruction constitutes both fundamental and reversible error. Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Christian v. State, 272 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Since that matter must be remanded for a retrial, the Court wishes to advise the State that questions concerning the Defendant’s use of Lithium or whether Lithium is the medically-indicated drug for manic-depression are legally contraindicated.
The conviction for murder in the third degree is REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2001)…tandard jury instruction be given if it adequately explains the law, see, e.g:, McGuire v. State, 639 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and giving a non-standard instruction that misleads the jury is reversible error. See, e.g., Doyle v. State, 483 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In analyzing the modified instructions given in this cáse, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving those instructions. As the State points out, Carpenter does not challenge on appeal the fac…
-
Elress Williams v. State, 774 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ot guilty as to one crime must not affect the verdict as to the other crime, instead of explaining that the jury’s verdict as to one defendant must not affect its verdict as to the other defendant. Accordingly, we reverse. See Doyle v. [*844] State, 483 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We revei'se based upon the improper jury instructions, but find no reversible error as to the other issues raised by Williams. REVERSED. GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 160…
-
Gill v. State, 586 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…tatement indicating that union was an alternative to penetration, is fundamental error. Such error misleads the jury as to a required specific element, which may have been the most significant disputed aspect of the state’s case. Cf. Doyle v. State, 483 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), appeal after remand, 513 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1988); Christian v. State, 272 [*473] So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1973); Cole v. State, 573 So. 2d 175 (F…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Christian v. State, 272 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)