DONALD B. HOFFERT, 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.
Donald Hoffert appeals his conviction and sentence following retrial after an earlier reversal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms, finding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on excusable homicide and that any errors were harmless.
The jury instruction on excusable homicide, including the sudden combat provision, was proper and cured the deficiencies identified in the prior case and in State v. Smith. The failure to re-instruct on excusable and justifiable homicide was waived because there was no prior request or subsequent objection. Any remaining errors were harmless.
[1] A jury instruction on excusable homicide is proper when it defines the killing as excusable if committed by accident and misfortune, provided the defendant was in the hea…
[2] A jury instruction on excusable homicide during sudden combat is improper if it fails to include the exceptions that a dangerous weapon was used or the killing was done i…
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 killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful if committed by accident and misfortune. In order to find the killing was committed by accident and misfortune, you must find that the Defendant was in the heat of passion brought on by a sudden provocation sufficient to produce in the mind of an ordinary person the highest degree of anger, rage, or resentment, that it is so intense as to overcome the use of ordinary judgment, thereby rendering a normal person incapable of reflection.”
Establishes the proper jury instruction for excusable homicide based on heat of passion and sudden provocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoffert was convicted of killing Peter Sullivan. The case was retried following the court's earlier reversal in Hoffert v. State, 559 So.2d 1246. At t…
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 Sudden Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence following retrial of appellant occasioned by our earlier reversal in Hoffert v. State, 559 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 570 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1990).
It is first contended that, as in the prior case, the “sudden combat” instruction given the jury was improper and again requires reversal.
The trial court gave the following jury instruction:
Excusable homicide. An issue in this case is whether the killing of Peter Sullivan was excusable. The killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful if committed by accident and misfortune. In order to find the killing was committed by accident and misfortune, you must find that the Defendant was in the heat of passion brought on by a sudden provocation sufficient to produce in the mind of an ordinary person the highest degree of anger, rage, or resentment, that it is so intense as to overcome the use of ordinary judgment, thereby rendering a normal person incapable of reflection.
Or in order to find the killing was committed by accident or misfortune, you must find the Defendant was engaged in sudden combat. However, a killing that occurs during sudden combat cannot be excusable if a dangerous weapon was used or the killing was done in a cruel and unusual manner. (Emphasis supplied.) This instruction cures the impropriety noted in State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1991), and the error which required reversal in the earlier Hoffert case.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred when the jury, at its request, was re-instructed on second degree murder and manslaughter, because the re-instruction did not include excusable and justifiable homicide. In Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978), the holding in Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965), was clarified to require re-instruction only on requested definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. Here, there was neither prior request nor subsequent objection. Thus the error, if any, has been waived. See Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla.1989); McGee v. State, 570 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 582 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1991).
We find no merit in appellant’s argument based upon ex parte communications. As to the other points raised, we find that any errors were harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and HERSEY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)
- Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- Hoffert v. State, 559 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Olin J. Dewberry, Jr. v. State, 570 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- McGEE v. State, 570 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)