CHARLES MONINGER, 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.
The trial court committed fundamental error by giving an erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act, requiring reversal of the second-degree murder conviction.
[1] Giving a manslaughter by act jury instruction constitutes fundamental error when a defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense not more than one step removed from…
[2] A conviction for second degree murder, based on a jury instruction that included manslaughter by act, may be reversed and remanded for a new trial when a subsequent contr…
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted of second-degree murder. This court initially affirmed the conviction, relying on precedent regarding jury instructions. The F…
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
On Remand From The Florida Supreme Court
The defendant appealed from a conviction and sentence for second degree murder with a deadly weapon as a lesser included offense of first degree murder. This court affirmed. Moninger v. State, 52 So.Sd 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Our affirmance was based on State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), and this court’s opinion in Singh v. State, 36 So.3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In Singh, we held that giving the standard jury instruction on manslaughter was not fundamental error in a prosecution for first degree murder, where the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and the instruction on manslaughter required the jury to find that the defendant “intentionally caused the death” of the victim or that the death of the victim “was caused by the culpable negligence” of the defendant.
The defendant petitioned for review in the Florida Supreme Court. While the petition was pending, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla.2013), which effectively quashed our decision in Singh. In Haygood, the Court held:
that giving the manslaughter by culpable negligence instruction does not cure the fundamental error in giving the erroneous manslaughter by act instruction where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed from manslaughter and the evidence supports a finding of manslaughter by act, but does not reasonably support a finding that the death occurred due to the culpable negligence of the defendant.
Id. at 743. The Court, by order, then accepted jurisdiction of this case, quashed this court’s opinion, and remanded for reconsideration upon application of Haygood.
In light of Haygood, we hold that the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the charge of second degree murder.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish Kerney v. State, 217 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…104-105; see, e.g., Moore v. State, 165 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Dowe v. State, 162 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Smith v. State, 145 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Barros-Dias v. State, 141 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Moninger v. State, 137 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); see also McKay v. State, 988 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (vacating a judgment on an untimely ineffective assistance of appellate counsel motion claiming manifest injustice); Adams v. State, 957 So. 2d 1183. (Fla. 3d DCA 200…
-
State v. Castro Guerra, 215 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Court’s decision in Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013). See, e.g., Moore v. State, 165 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Paul v. State, 183 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Dowe v. State, 162 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Moninger v. State, 137 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Smith v. State, 145 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Barros-Dias v. State, 141 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). While Guerra’s case presents unique circumstances, the circumstances are not unprecedented, and we have on such previo…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)
- Singh v. State, 36 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)