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 the denial of his post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to object to a jury reinstruction on manslaughter that omitted definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. The court reverses and remands, holding that such definitions are essential to properly instruct on manslaughter as a residual offense.
The court held that manslaughter, as a residual offense defined by reference to what it is not, requires that the jury be instructed on the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide and murder. A guilty verdict on the greater charge does not render omission of these definitions harmless error. The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claim.
[1] When a jury requests a reinstruction on manslaughter, the trial court must also reinstruct on justifiable and excusable homicide as a necessary concomitant of manslaughte…
[2] A trial court's failure to reinstruct on justifiable and excusable homicide when reinstructing on manslaughter constitutes reversible error.
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“Manslaughter is a residual offense, defined by reference to what it is not. In order to define manslaughter completely, the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide and murder must be included.”
Establishes the essential legal principle that manslaughter requires instruction on related homicide categories for complete definition
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoffert was charged with second-degree murder. During trial, the jury received a reinstruction on manslaughter that did not include the definitions of…
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 Residual Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donald Hoffert appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The basis of appellant’s motion was his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to object to a jury reinstruction on manslaughter which did not include the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. We reverse and remand.
In denying appellant’s motion, the trial court found that since the jury rejected the possibility that appellant was guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree murder, any alleged error in the incomplete reinstruction “would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case.” See Dean v. State, 325 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1976) (technical error in incomplete rein-struction cured by jury’s verdict of guilty of first-degree murder); Garcia v. State, 535 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), quashed, 552 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1989) (jury’s finding of guilty of second-degree murder necessarily precludes finding that person’s act was justifiable or excusable; therefore, any error in reinstruction harmless). Therefore, the court held that appellant had not made the required showing of prejudice necessary to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006 (Fla.1989), the supreme court rejected the harmless error analysis applied by the courts in Dean and Garcia. The court reaffirmed Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824, 826 (Fla.1965), and its progeny in holding that “[m]an-slaughter is a residual offense, defined by reference to what it is not. In order to define manslaughter completely, the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide and murder must be included.” Stockton, 544 So. 2d at 1007-08 (citations omitted); see also Garcia v. State, 552 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1989), quashing 535 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1989).
We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s ineffectiveness claim. Dent v. State, 659 So. 2d 1394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KLEIN, PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Platt v. State, 697 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…other grounds, Tobey v. State, 533 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (en banc), review denied, 542 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1989). The reversal in Spaziano followed an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. In Hoffert v. State, 662 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we reversed for an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to object to a jury reinstruetion on manslaughter which did not include the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. Here, defense c…
Authorities Cited
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- Stockton v. State, 544 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1989)
- Dean v. State, 325 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Rigoberto Garcia v. State, 535 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Rigoberto Garcia v. State, 552 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1989)
- Dent v. State, 659 So. 2d 1394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)