JOHNNY BURGESS, 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 failure to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide constitutes fundamental error unless defense counsel affirmatively waived such instructions.
[1] A trial court must instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide in all murder and manslaughter cases.
[2] Failure to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide constitutes fundamental 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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder. His appellate counsel raised the issue of the trial court's denial of a motion for judg…
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 Justifiable Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding began as an Anders1 appeal. Burgess’ appellate counsel appealed his conviction for attempted second degree murder with a firearm,2 raising solely the point that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Burgess filed a pro se brief in which he claimed the trial court committed fundamental error (among other things) by failing to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide. This court requested additional briefings from appellant’s counsel and the attorney general.
Upon a review of the record, both conclude that fundamental error occurred in this case. See Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1991); Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). As the attorney general points out in the state’s brief, citing Van Loan v. State, 736 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), a trial court must read the definitions of excusable and justifiable homicide in all murder and manslaughter cases.
A failure to give these instructions constitutes fundamental error. By omitting the definitions, the trial court fails to advise the jury as to what constitutes lawful acts versus unlawful acts.
Van Loan, 736 So. 2d at 804.
The only exception to this requirement is in a case where it can be demonstrated that defense counsel “affirmatively” waived charging the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide. But mere failure to object to the jury charge which omits those charges is not sufficient to constitute an affirmative waiver. See Fletcher v. State, 828 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
The state concedes there is no basis in the record to find an affirmative waiver and the error is not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. Sections 782.04, 777.04, Florida Statutes (2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Rojas v. State, 552 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1991)
- van Loan v. State, 736 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Durelle Johnson v. State, 828 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)