FRANK PHILLIP MILLER, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the necessarily lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated.
[1] A trial court must instruct the jury on a necessarily lesser included offense when requested.
[2] Driving while intoxicated is a necessarily lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated manslaughter.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of DWI manslaughter. The trial court denied appellant's request for a jury instruction on DUI, a lesser included offense.…
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 Necessarily Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the lower court’s final judgment adjudicating him guilty of D.W.I. manslaughter (driving while intoxicated causing death, section 316.1931(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985)). We find that one of appellant’s points on appeal has merit.
The trial court denied appellant’s request for a jury instruction on D.U.I. (driving under the influence). D.U.I. is proscribed m section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1985), and section 316.193(l)(a) can be equated essentially with simple D.W.I., proscribed in section 316.1931(1), Florida Statutes (1985).
The trial court did not have the benefit of State v. Wimberly, 498 So. 2d 929, 932 (Fla. 1986), in which the supreme court states:
A “necessarily lesser included offense” is, as the name implies, a lesser offense that is always included in the major offense. The trial judge has no discretion in whether to instruct the jury on a necessarily lesser included offense. Once the judge determines that the offense is a necessarily lesser included offense, an instruction must be given.
The requirement that a trial judge must give a requested instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense is bottomed upon a recognition of the jury’s right to exercise its “pardon power.”
The Wimberly court also notes that the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases lists, in category one, the necessarily lesser included offenses on which jury instructions must be given. Id. at 931.
Section 316.1931(1), driving while intoxicated, is listed as a category one necessarily lesser included offense of section 316.-1931(2)(c), D.W.I. manslaughter, in the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases (October 1985).
Based on the foregoing we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the necessarily lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated, thereby depriving the jury of its inherent “pardon power.” We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kurtz v. State, 564 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ments fall within the greater offense of DUI manslaughter. § 316.193, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). Mr. Kurtz cannot be convicted of both DUI and DUI manslaughter arising from the same act. See § 775.021(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988); see also Miller v. State, 509 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). III. THE DUAL ADJUDICATIONS FOR MANSLAUGHTER. Our analysis of the homicide is complicated by the fact that it occurred a few weeks after the effective date of the amendment to the rule of lenity. § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (S…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wimberly, 498 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1986)