STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID F. LUCAS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that failure to instruct a jury that justifiable and excusable homicide are excluded from manslaughter constitutes fundamental, non-harmless error requiring reversal when a defendant is convicted of manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed, such as second-degree murder.
Yes. The court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that failure to give a complete initial instruction on manslaughter constitutes fundamental reversible error when a defendant is convicted of either manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed, except where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested the incomplete instruction.
[1] Failure to instruct a jury on justifiable and excusable homicide as part of a manslaughter instruction constitutes fundamental and per se reversible error when a defendan…
[2] A complete jury instruction on manslaughter requires an explanation that justifiable and excusable homicide are excluded from the crime.
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“because manslaughter is a "residual offense, defined by reference to what it is not," a complete instruction on manslaughter requires an explanation that justifiable and excusable homicide are excluded from the crime”
Establishes the legal foundation for why the omitted instruction was essential to a complete manslaughter charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid F. Lucas was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and attempted second-degree murder. At trial, Lucas's defense was that alth…
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 Manslaughter Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Lucas v. State, 630 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF EITHER MANSLAUGHTER OR A GREATER OFFENSE NOT MORE THAN ONE STEP REMOVED, DOES FAILURE TO EXPLAIN JUSTIFIABLE AND EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE AS PART OF THE MANSLAUGHTER INSTRUCTION ALWAYS CONSTITUTE BOTH “FUNDAMENTAL” AND PER SE REVERSIBLE ERROR, WHICH MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL AND MAY NOT BE SUBJECTED TO A HARMLESS-ERROR ANALYSIS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE EVIDENCE COULD SUPPORT A FINDING OF EITHER JUSTIFIABLE OR EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE?
630 So. 2d at 600. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
David F. Lucas was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery and attempted second-degree murder. At trial, Lucas’ defense was that although the crimes charged had occurred, he was not the perpetrator. At defense counsel’s request, the trial court gave the jury an instruction on attempted manslaughter as a category-one lesser-ineluded offense of attempted second-degree murder. However, the court failed to explain that Lucas could not be found guilty of attempted manslaughter if the evidence showed that the attempted homicide was justifiable or excusable. Lucas did not object to the omission. The jury found him guilty on all four counts.
Lucas appealed the attempted second-degree murder conviction, maintaining that the court’s failure to explain justifiable and excusable homicide as part of the attempted manslaughter instruction was fundamental error, requiring reversal. Looking to this Court’s decisions in Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1989), and Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1991), the district court agreed and certified the above question. 630 So. 2d at 599-600. We have repeatedly recognized that because manslaughter is a “residual offense, defined by reference to what it is not,” a complete instruction on manslaughter requires an explanation that justifiable and excusable homicide are excluded from the crime. Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.1989); see also Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1991); Rojas; Miller; State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1990); Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965). The district court is correct that this case is controlled by our decisions in Rojas and Miller, which stand for the proposition that failure to give a complete instruction on manslaughter during the original jury charge is fundamental error which is not subject to harmless-error analysis where the defendant has been convicted of either manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed, such as second-degree murder. The only exception we have recognized is where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested the incomplete instruction. Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1991).
The State concedes that in order to answer the certified question in the negative we must recede from our prior decisions. We decline this suggestion and reiterate that the failure to give a complete initial instruction on manslaughter constitutes fundamental reversible error when the defendant is convicted of either manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (54 total)
-
Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)…correct instruction on a one-step-removed necessarily lesser included offense as per se reversible error and as fundamental error without regard to whether there is any evidentiary basis for an instruction on the lesser offense. See State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425, 426-27 (Fla.1994) (holding that “when a defendant has been convicted of either manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed, ... failure to explain justifiable and excusable homicide as part of the manslaughter instruction alway…
-
Pena v. State, 901 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2005)…5 (Fla.1991). The general rule in homicide trials where manslaughter appears on the verdict form either as a charged or lesser offense is that the jury must be instructed on the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. See State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1994). The instructions must be given because manslaughter is a residual offense that can only be fully de [*787] fined by exclusion of the properly explained defenses of excusable and justifiable homicide. See id. We have held, however, that i…
-
Universal Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012)…roneous instruction. See Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla.1991) (citing Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981)). Fundamental error is also waived where defense counsel affirmatively agrees to an improper instruction. See State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla.1994) (“The only exception we have recognized is where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested the incomplete instruction.”) (citing Armstrong, 579 So. 2d at 734); see also Tindall v. State, 997 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA…
Previewing 3 of 54 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)
- State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)
- Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1991)
- Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1989)
- Miller v. State, 573 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1991)
- Lucas v. State, 630 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)