JONATHAN WILLIAMS, 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.
Williams appeals his convictions for second-degree murder and aggravated battery. The court affirmed the aggravated battery conviction but reversed the second-degree murder conviction because the trial court's jury instruction on manslaughter improperly suggested an intent to kill was required, violating the defendant's right to a jury's pardon power under State v. Montgomery.
The court held that the manslaughter instruction was fundamentally erroneous because it improperly required an intent to kill before conviction on the lesser-included offense, thereby depriving the jury of its inherent pardon power. The conviction for second-degree murder was reversed and remanded for a new trial; the aggravated battery conviction was affirmed.
[1] A jury instruction on manslaughter is fundamentally erroneous if it improperly suggests that the defendant must have intended to kill the victim, thereby foreclosing a co…
[2] A jury instruction that requires proof of an intent to kill for manslaughter is fundamentally erroneous when the charged offense does not require such intent.
Previewing 2 of 5 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's instruction on the elements of manslaughter was incorrect, as it improperly suggested that the defendant was required to have an intent to kill the victim before being convicted of manslaughter.”
Establishes the fundamental error: the instruction required intent to kill for the lesser-included offense while the charged crime did not.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJonathan Williams was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in the death of Buddy Eugene Pickett. The trial court instructed the ju…
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 Jury Pardon Power cases and more on FLexlaw
Jonathan Williams, Appellant, seeks review of his convictions for second-degree murder and aggravated battery. We find no reversible error in the conviction for aggravated battery. However, because the trial court’s instruction on manslaughter by act was fundamentally erroneous under State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), we reverse and remand for a new trial on the second-degree murder charge.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows on manslaughter:
[T]o prove the crime of manslaughter,] the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: One, Buddy Eugene Pickett is dead. Two, Jonathan David Williams intentionally caused the death of Buddy Eugene Pickett.
However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms.
In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act[,] it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act which caused death.
There was no instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence as in Salonko v. State, 42 So.3d 801, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Appellant did not specifically agree to the erroneous instruction as in Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Based on the holding in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d at 257, the trial court’s instruction on the elements of manslaugh*1208ter was incorrect, as it improperly suggested that the defendant was required to have an intent to kill the victim before being convicted of manslaughter. The Montgomery court held that this error was fundamental because it deprived the jury of its inherent “pardon” power by foreclosing a conviction of the lesser-ineluded offense one step removed from the crime of conviction if the jury did not believe the defendant intended to kill the victim, given that the crime of conviction required no intent to kill, while the instructions at issue indicated that intent to kill was an element of the lesser-ineluded offense one step removed. 39 So.3d at 259.
This case requires us to consider whether the trial court’s instruction that it was “not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act which caused death” cured the defect in the instruction on the elements of manslaughter. This precise issue was recently decided in Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Pryor v. State, 48 So.3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Riesel held that the instructions at issue were not materially distinguishable from the instructions given in Montgomery, 39 So.3d at 258, and the Pryor Court followed suit, 48 So.3d 159, 161. Based on those cases, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the second-degree murder charge only.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baron Moore v. State, 57 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…cknowledge that our decision in this respect directly conflicts with the decisions in the First District Court of Appeal in Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Williams v. State, 50 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).…
-
Pharisien v. State, 74 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…Id. Relying on Riesel, the First District has reached the same conclusion in several additional cases. See, e.g., Noack v. State, 61 So. 3d 1208, 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159, 161-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Williams v. State, 50 So. 3d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The Third District, on the other hand, held in Moore v. State that the amended instruction was not fundamentally erroneous because it sufficiently clarified the intent element. 57 So. 3d 240, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).1 We a…
-
Tedrick Page v. State, 81 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…that it is and is not necessary to have an intention to cause death — not only does not obviate the Montgomery defect, but that it is fundamentally erroneous, requiring a new trial even in the absence of preservation below. Accord Williams v. State, 50 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159, 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). This Court, however, squarely held to the contrary in Figueroa. Accord Daniels v. State, 46 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 3d…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- 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)
- Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)