ANGEL MANUEL NIEVES, 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.
Angel Manuel Nieves appeals his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on manslaughter by act using a standard instruction that improperly added an 'intent to kill' element. The appellate court affirms the conviction, distinguishing the case from a conflicting First District decision and noting the jury also received an alternative manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction.
No. The appellate court affirmed Nieves' conviction and sentence, holding that the instruction on manslaughter by act was not fundamentally erroneous, and distinguished the case from Montgomery v. State based on the fact that the jury also received an instruction on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by culpable negligence.
[1] A jury instruction on manslaughter by act is not fundamentally erroneous if it includes the additional element of "intent to kill" when the jury is also instructed on the…
[2] A jury instruction on manslaughter by act that requires proof of an "intent to kill" is not fundamentally erroneous, even if a prior appellate decision found such an inst…
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 trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by act because the standard instruction in effect at the time of and given at his trial improperly imposed the additional element of "intent to kill" to that offense”
States Nieves' central argument on appeal regarding the allegedly erroneous jury instruction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngel Manuel Nieves was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, the court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by a…
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 By Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Angel Manuel Nieves appeals his judgment and sentence for second-degree murder. Nieves contends that the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by act because the standard instruction in effect at the time of and given at his trial improperly imposed the additional element of “intent to kill” to that offense.1 In support of his contention, Nieves relies on Montgomery v. State, — So.3d - (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), review granted, 11 So.3d 943 (Fla.2009), in which the First District determined that the trial court fundamentally erred in giving the standard instruction on manslaughter by act in effect at the time of Montgomery’s trial, which was virtually identical to the instruction given at Nieves’ trial. This court, however, recently held that the instruction was not fundamentally erroneous. See Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239, 1245-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Furthermore, unlike Montgomery and Zeigler, the jury in Nieves’ case was also instructed on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by culpable negligence.
Accordingly, we affirm Nieves’ conviction and sentence, and as we did in Zeig-ler, we certify conflict with Montgomery.
Judgment and sentence affirmed; conflict certified.
WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)…at “[a]lthough Mr. Haygood’s argument [of fundamental error] is arguably supported by supreme court precedent, we adhere to the precedent of this district as established in Barros-Dias v. State, 41 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), and Nieves v. State, 22 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and we accordingly affirm Mr. Haygood’s judgment of conviction.” Haygood, 54 So. 3d at 1036. The district court recognized that this Court held in Montgomery that the then-standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act was erro…
-
Singh v. State, 36 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ll the victim, based on the instructions given, it could have returned a verdict for the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by culpable negligence while still honoring its finding that there was no intent to kill.” Id. See also Nieves v. State, 22 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Furthermore, unlike Montgomery and Zeigler, the jury in Nieves’ case was also instructed on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter by culpable negligence.”). The instruction given by the trial court did not constitute…
-
Salonko v. State, 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…erdict for second-degree murder, precluding the jury from choosing the lesser-included offense one step removed. Id. This situation does not exist when the trial court gives an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. See Nieves v. State, 22 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (distinguishing Montgomery where the trial court gave an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence). [*803] Here, the trial court’s erroneous instruction did not interfere with the jury’s deliberative process in a wa…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2008)
- Alexander v. State, 11 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)