HOWARD CHRISTIAN SULLIVAN, 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.
Howard Sullivan appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. The court affirmed the robbery conviction but reversed the second-degree murder conviction, finding that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that intent to kill was a required element of manslaughter by act, a lesser included offense of second-degree murder.
The trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that intent to kill was required for manslaughter by act. Under State v. Montgomery, the relevant intent for manslaughter by act is the intent to commit an act which caused death, not intent to kill. A narrow exception to this fundamental error rule exists only when the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction is given in combination with an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence, which was not present here.
[1] An instruction informing the jury that intent to kill is a required element of manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental error.
[2] Fundamental error does not occur when an erroneous instruction on manslaughter by act is given in combination with an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence.
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 relevant intent in the charge of manslaughter by act 'is the intent to commit an act which caused death, [not] that the defendant intended to kill the victim.'”
Establishes the correct legal standard for intent required in manslaughter by act under State v. Montgomery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward Sullivan was convicted of second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. At trial, the court instructed the jury on second-degree murde…
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
Howard Sullivan appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm the robbery conviction without further discussion, and write only to address Sullivan’s argument that the trial court committed fundamental error when instructing the jury on second-degree murder. Sullivan claims the trial court erred because, when instructing the jury on manslaughter by act, a lesser included offense of second degree-murder, it informed the jury that intent to kill was a required element. Defendant did not object to this instruction at trial. We find Sullivan’s argument persuasive and, there-foi-e, reverse his second-degree murder conviction and sentence.
Pursuant to State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 257 (Fla.2010), the relevant intent in the charge of manslaughter by act “is the intent to commit an act which caused death, [not] that the defendant intended to kill the victim.” Montgomery states any instruction that includes intent to kill as an element of manslaughter by act is fundamental error. Id. at 258. A narrow exception exists when the trial court gives the erroneous instruction on manslaughter by act in combination with the instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. See Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306, 306-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Fundamental error does not occur in such circumstances because it is possible the jury will base its decision only upon the elements of manslaughter by culpable negligence, which do not require a finding of intent to kill. Id. at 306; see also Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jackson v. State, 49 So.3d 271, 271-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Salonko v. State, 42 So.3d 801, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Here, the trial court instructed the jury that manslaughter by act required an intent to kill, and gave no instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. Accordingly, under Montgomery, the jury instruction was fundamental error. Therefore, we reverse Sullivan’s conviction for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial on that charge.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
ROBERTS and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Joyner v. State, 41 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Salonko v. State, 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Jackson v. State, 49 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)