RANDY RIESEL, 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.
Randy Riesel appeals his second-degree murder conviction and life sentence. The trial court erred by instructing the jury on manslaughter by intentional act in a manner that erroneously required proof of intent to kill, which is not an element of manslaughter. This fundamental error requires reversal and a new trial.
The manslaughter instruction constituted fundamental error because it erroneously imposed a requirement that the jury find the defendant intended to kill the victim, which is not an element of manslaughter by act. The conviction for second-degree murder is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
[1] An instruction that requires the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim is an erroneous statement of the law for the crime of mansla…
[2] An erroneous jury instruction on a lesser included offense that requires the jury to find an element not present in the actual offense constitutes fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 instruction erroneously imposed upon the jury a requirement to find that Montgomery intended to kill the victim”
Establishes the fundamental error: the manslaughter instruction incorrectly required proof of intent to kill
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandy Riesel was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Charles David May, Jr. At trial, the jury was instructed on the lesser included off…
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
Randy Riesel appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence to life in prison. He was convicted as charged, after the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act as follows: “To prove the crime of manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Number one, Charles David May, Jr., is dead. Number two, Randy Scott Riesel intentionally caused the death of Charles David May, Jr.” Later on the instruction also stated: “In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit and (sic) act which caused death.”1 The jury was not instructed on manslaughter by culpable negligence. Cf. Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Salonko v. State, 42 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
The manslaughter instruction in the present case is not materially different from the instruction held to be fundamental error in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), because it, too, erroneously stated that intent to kill was an element of manslaughter. Montgomery, 39 So.3d at 256, 259 (manslaughter by act instruction which provided that the state must prove the defendant “intentionally caused the death of’ the victim resulted in fundamental error because the “instruction erroneously imposed upon the jury a requirement to find that Montgomery intended to kill” the victim).2 See also Hardee v. State, — So.3d —, 2009 WL 3047359, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1946 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 25, 2009); Ward v. State, 12 So.3d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Stinson v. State, — So.3d —, —, 2009 WL 633133, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D570, D571 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 13, 2009). See generally Reddick v. State, 394 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.1981) (“The failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense (one step removed) constitutes error that is per se reversible.”). *887We reverse the conviction for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial.3
Reversed and remanded.
BENTON, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013)…f the Second District Court of Appeal in Daniels v. State, 72 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The district court certified that its decision is in express and direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The issue before us concerns whether the standard jury instruction for the offense of manslaughter by act, as amended in 2008,1 erroneously stated the required elements of…1 / 3
-
Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…inal Cases-Report No. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla.2008).. However, the instruction retained the erroneous language that the state had to prove that the defendant “intentionally caused the death” of the victim. Id. Recently, in Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885, 2010 WL 4025863 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), we held that, because this amended instruction still stated that intent to kill was an element of manslaughter, giving the instruction constituted fundamental error pursuant to Montgomery where the jury [*162] w…
-
Moore v. State, 114 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…jury instruction was also error because it was “not materially different” from the one considered in Montgomery, “even though the instruction later provided that the jury was to find only an intent to commit an act which caused the victim’s death.” 48 So. 3d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).1 Here, appellant was convicted of second-degree murder, which is only one step removed from manslaughter. Thus, this error would be fundamental pursuant to Montgomery and Riesel, had counsel not specifically agreed to the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2008)
- Reddick v. State, 394 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981)
- In re Amendments TO Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases - Instruction 7.7, 41 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 2010)
- Joyner v. State, 41 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Salonko v. State, 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Morgan v. State, 42 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Ward v. State, 12 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)