MERLE FRANCES ZEIGLER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the district court's reasoning in Zeigler was inconsistent with the prior ruling in Montgomery, and that the erroneous jury instruction constituted fundamental error.
[1] A jury instruction on manslaughter by act is fundamentally erroneous if it requires the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the victim's death.
[2] The use of an erroneous jury instruction on a necessarily lesser included offense constitutes fundamental reversible error.
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 intelligenceThe Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Zeigler conflicted with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Montgomery. The court had p…
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 Fundamental Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We previously accepted jurisdiction in Montgomery and stayed proceedings in Zeigler pending disposition of Montgomery. In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), we held that because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the use of the then-standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental reversible error in his case because it erroneously required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. We then affirmed the district court’s reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. We subsequently issued an order in Zeigler directing the State to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Montgomery.
Upon review of the parties’ responses and the decision below, we conclude that the district court’s reasoning in Zeigler is inconsistent with our reasoning in Montgomery and our conclusion that the use of the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction constituted fundamental error that required reversal of Montgomery’s conviction for second-degree murder. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review. The decision below is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Second District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Montgomery.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nieves v. State, 144 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…re not fundamentally erroneous and had certified conflict with the First District’s contrary opinion in Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Montgomery I). See Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239, 1245-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), quashed, 75 So. 3d 236 (Fla.2011). Based on Zeigler, this court affirmed Nieves’ judgment and sentence on the grounds that the instruction was not fundamentally erroneous and that his case was distinguishable from Montgomery I because Nieves’ jury was also instructed on m…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)