LUIS JIMENEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Luis Jimenez was convicted of second-degree murder after a trial in which the jury was not instructed on excusable homicide, despite being instructed on manslaughter and justifiable homicide. The Third District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the omission of the excusable homicide instruction constituted fundamental error because manslaughter is a residual offense defined by what it excludes.
The court held that the failure to instruct on excusable homicide constitutes fundamental error not subject to harmless-error analysis, as manslaughter is a residual offense defined by what it excludes, and a complete instruction requires explaining that justifiable and excusable homicide are excluded from the crime. The exception for defense counsel affirmatively agreeing to an incomplete instruction did not apply here.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury completely on justifiable and excusable homicide as part of the instruction on manslaughter.
[2] Failure to instruct on an offense only one step removed from the conviction is per se reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“[Bjecause 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 foundational principle that manslaughter instructions must explain what homicides are excluded from the crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimenez was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, the defense argued self-defense (justifiable homicide) and the defense counsel initially requ…
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
COPE, J.
The question on this appeal is whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of excusable homicide. We conclude that there was fundamental error and remand for a new trial.
Defendant-appellant, Luis Jimenez, was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, defense counsel requested that the instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter not be given. The State objected and the trial court ruled that the instruction on manslaughter would be given.
The defendant’s main position at trial was that he killed the victim while acting in self defense. The State and the defense agreed that the instruction on justifiable homicide should be given. Neither party requested that the excusable homicide instruction be given, so it was not. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and has appealed.
“[Bjecause 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.” State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla.1994) (citations omitted). “[F]ailure 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.” Id. There is an exception “where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or request ed the incomplete instruction,” id. (citation omitted), but that did not occur here.
The State contends that there is no fundamental error because, in the State’s view, there was no evidence on which the jury could have found excusable homicide. The State correctly points out that the defendant made no argument to the jury about excusable homicide, and only argued justifiable homicide. The State contends that, under these circumstances, the omission of the excusable homicide instruction cannot be fundamental error. We reject that argument. As the First District has explained, “[i]t matters not whether any view of the evidence could support a finding of either excusable or justifiable homicide.” Black v. State, 695 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citations omitted).*
The fact that the defendant unsuccessfully tried to waive instructions on lesser included offenses “cannot be construed as a specific waiver of, or affirmative request to limit, the justifiable and excusable homicide instruction.” Hall v. State, 677 So. 2d 1353, 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (citations omitted). See also Reyes v. State, 924 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
For the stated reasons, we must reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. We reject the defendant’s second point on appeal, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him, without discussion.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
*
The defendant argues alternatively that there was some evidence on which, in theory, an argument of excusable homicide could have been made. In reality, however, the defendant’s only argument to the jury was based on justifiable homicide. Since the omission of the instruction on excusable homicide amounts to fundamental error regardless of the underlying facts, we need not explore the defendant's alternative argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Universal Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012)…y 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 2009); Jimenez v. State, 994 So. 2d 1141, 1142-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); York v. State, 932 So. 2d 413, 416 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“An exception from the doctrine of fundamental error applies in circumstances ‘where defense counsel affirmatively agreed to or requested’ an erroneous instruct…
-
Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…s to an improper instruction.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla.1994); Falwell v. State, 88 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); see also Tindall v. State, 997 So. 2d 1260, 1261-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Jimenez v. State, 994 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); York v. State, 932 So. 2d 413, 416 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Abbamo v. State, 654 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The doctrine is founded on the principle that “‘a party may not make or invite error at trial and then ta…
-
Falwell v. State, 88 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…see Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1991), or affirmatively agrees to an improper instruction, see State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla.1994). See also Tindall v. State, 997 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Jimenez v. State, 994 So. 2d 1141, 1142-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); York v. State, 932 So. 2d 413, 416 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, Falwell affirmatively agreed to the flawed jury instruction. When the instructions were read to the jury, Falwell’s counsel agreed with the State that th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Lucas, 645 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1994)
- Duncan v. State, 695 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Hall v. State, 677 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Ofelia Perdomo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 924 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Ezequiel Reyes v. State, 924 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)