JORGE GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jorge Gonzalez appeals his manslaughter conviction, claiming the trial court erred by re-instructing the jury on all charges while refusing to include a self-defense instruction. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the trial court properly responded to the jury's specific request for re-instruction on lesser-included offenses without error.
The trial court did not err. Where a trial court directly responds to a jury's specific request and limits its re-instruction accordingly, there is no error. The trial court properly included the lesser-included charges along with the greater offense and justifiable and excusable homicide, and properly limited its response by denying the self-defense re-instruction request.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an issue that was not properly preserved for appeal.
[2] A trial court does not err by re-instructing a jury on lesser-included offenses when the jury specifically requests re-instruction on those charges.
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“Where a trial court directly responds to a jury's specific request and limits its re-instruction accordingly, there is no error.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for trial court jury re-instruction in response to jury requests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was charged with second-degree murder. During jury deliberations, the jury requested re-instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second…
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 Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gonzalez raises three points on appeal of his conviction of and sentence for manslaughter. We find that the first issue was not properly preserved for appeal. See Matheson v. State, 500 3o.2d 1341 (Fla.1987). Finding, also, that the trial court did not depart from the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710, we have only to address appellant’s second point on appeal.
While the jury was deliberating in this case, it requested that the trial court re-instruct it on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder, the charge pending against Gonzalez. Gonzalez contends that the trial court erred in responding to the request by gratuitously re-instructing the jury on all of the charges, including second-degree murder, while refusing appellant’s request to include the instruction on self-defense. We disagree.
Where a trial court directly responds to a jury’s specific request and limits its re-instruction accordingly, there is no error. See Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1978). In this case, the jury requested re-instruction of only the lesser-included charges. In its response to the request, the trial court properly included charges of the greater offense and of justifiable and excusable homicide, thereby giving complete instructions on the subject. See Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965); Bristow v. State, 338 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The trial court also properly limited its response to the jury’s request by denying Gonzalez’ request to re-instruct the jury on self-defense, and this was not misleading. See Bristow, 338 So. 2d at 556; see also Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Gonzalez contends that this conflicts with McCormick v. State, 308 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
In McCormick, the district court held that it was error for the trial court to omit an instruction on self-defense in recharging the jury. McCormick is distinguishable, however, from the present case. In McCormick, the jury requested the court to summarize all of the instructions. Since the trial court did not fully respond to the jury’s request, the jury was left with incomplete and potentially misleading instructions. 308 So. 2d at 127. In the case sub judice, the trial court fully complied with the jury’s request: to reread the instructions on the lesser-included offenses.
Consequently, we find that the trial court did not err in re-instructing the jury, and that this result is consistent with the case law of Florida.
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and sentence are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rigoberto Garcia v. State, 535 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…charged crime of burglary by stating those elements, along with the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof, without also re-reading a previously given instruction concerning the defense of good faith mistake.”); Gonzalez v. State, 502 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“The trial court also properly limited its response to the jury’s request by denying Gonzalez’ request to re-instruct the jury on self-defense, and this was not misleading.”); Reifsnyder v. State, 428 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Carranza v. State, 511 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…rally required to reinstruct on affirmative defenses when responding to a specific request by the jury, provided that, in the case of manslaughter, the general instructions on excusable and justifiable homicide are also given. See Gonzalez v. State, 502 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Reifsnyder v. State, 428 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Gross v. State, 397 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bristow v. State, 338 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). However, none of these cases involved the element of defense of anot…
-
Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…there being no merit to his contention that the trial court erred in refusing to reinstruct on justifiable use of deadly force. See Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1978); Reynolds v. State, 438 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Gonzalez v. State, 502 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Reifsnyder v. State, 428 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, we vacate the provision in the written sentence imposing restitution, as that condition was not a part of the oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing, and rema…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1978)
- Bristow v. State, 338 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Cheatham v. State, 346 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- McCORMICK v. State, 308 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)