JAMES L. WEIGEL, 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 Weigel was convicted of manslaughter for stabbing a victim during an altercation. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to two errors: the trial court's failure to provide the long-form jury instruction on excusable homicide and its failure to comply with statutory requirements when sentencing a seventeen-year-old as an adult.
The trial court's use of the short-form instruction on excusable homicide constituted harmful error requiring reversal and remand for a new trial. Additionally, the trial court's failure to comply with statutory mandates requiring written findings of fact and specific reasons for imposing adult sanctions requires reversal of the sentence.
[1] A trial court's failure to provide the long form instruction on excusable homicide, when properly requested and objected to by the defendant, constitutes harmful error re…
[2] The short form instruction on excusable homicide may be misleading by suggesting that a killing committed with a dangerous weapon can never be excusable.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 short form instruction may be "misleading in that it could be construed to suggest that a killing can never be excusable if committed with a dangerous weapon."”
Establishes why the short-form jury instruction was reversible error in a case involving a stabbing with a butcher knife.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Weigel stabbed the victim with a butcher knife after an altercation and was convicted of manslaughter. Weigel was seventeen years old at the tim…
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 Excusable Homicide Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
James Weigel, appealing from his conviction for manslaughter, has raised four issues, two of which have merit.
First, Weigel contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury using the long form instruction on excusable homicide. Weigel’s counsel requested this instruction and lodged appropriate objections when the trial court refused to give it and after the trial court presented it to the jury in the short form. We recognize that the supreme court, in State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1990), has held that a trial court’s failure to give the long form instruction does not constitute fundamental error when the defendant has neither requested the long form instruction nor objected to it in its shortened version. In this case, however, where appropriate objections were asserted, the fundamental error concern is not present. Thus, we must determine whether the error is harmful. In Smith the supreme court recognized our observations in Smith v. State, 539 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and in Blitch v. State, 427 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), that the short form instruction may be “misleading in that it could be construed to suggest that a killing can never be excusable if committed with a dangerous weapon.” 573 So. 2d at 311. Weigel was convicted of manslaughter when he stabbed the victim with a butcher knife after an altercation; thus, any confusion about whether his actions were even arguably excusable would be crucial. On this basis we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Weigel’s second contention is that the trial court erred when it sentenced the seventeen-year old defendant as an adult and deliberately ignored the statutory mandate of section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987):
Any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing, and it shall be in conformity with each of the above criteria. The court shall render a specific finding of fact and the reasons to impose adult sanctions.
Failure to comply with this section requires reversal of the sentence. See Dinks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Dix v. State, 533 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Clemons v. State, 508 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Manuel, 796 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…U.S. 690, 696-97, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Harris v. State, 761 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Curtis v. State, 748 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); State v. R.M., 696 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hindenberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). [*605] The issue in this case is whether, based on the attending convenience store clerk’s tip, Officer Ho had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop and detain appellee. Whether the police have reasonable suspicion t…
-
Wencel v. State, 737 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made [*631] concerning charges of burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm on the authority of Hindenberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which held that the investigating officer’s attempt to initially establish rapport with defendant prior to giving Miranda warnings did not taint portions of defendant’s statement made after warnings were given. Similarly, in t…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)
- Butch v. State, 427 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Smith v. State, 539 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Clemons v. State, 508 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- DIX v. State, 533 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Dinks v. State, 561 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)