BARON MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Baron Moore's conviction for second-degree murder is reversed due to a fundamentally erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act. Following Florida Supreme Court precedent in Montgomery, Haygood, Daniels, and Griffin, the appellate court found the instruction was error requiring reversal and a new trial.
Moore's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury instruction on manslaughter by act was fundamentally erroneous under established precedent, the evidence supported manslaughter by act but not culpable negligence, Moore did not concede intent, and he was convicted of second-degree murder.
[1] An erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental error when a defendant is convicted of second-degree murder, and the evidence supports mansla…
[2] A defendant's sole defense of misidentification does not waive the right to challenge an erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act as fundamental 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 intelligence“the erroneous instruction was not cured by giving a culpable negligence instruction if the evidence supports manslaughter by act, the evidence does not support manslaughter by culpable negligence, and where the defendant is convicted of second-degree murder”
Establishes the test from Haygood for when erroneous manslaughter instructions require reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaron Moore was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, Moore received a jury instruction on manslaughter by act that was determined to suffer fr…
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 Misidentification Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND
Upon remand by the Florida Supreme Court, we reverse Baron Moore’s conviction and sentence for second degree murder and remand for a new trial.
In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), the Florida Supreme Court found that the standard jury instruction for manslaughter by act was erroneous and that the erroneous instruction was fundamental error where Montgomery was convicted of second-degree murder, which is only one step removed from manslaughter. Id. at 258. In Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla.2013), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court’s fundamental error in giving the erroneous jury instruction was cured by also giving an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. The Court concluded that the erroneous instruction was not cured by giving a culpable negligence instruction if the evidence supports manslaughter by act, thé evidence does not support manslaughter by culpable negligence, and where the defendant is convicted of second-degree murder. Haygood, 109 So.3d at 737.
Thereafter, in Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla.2013), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that, although the manslaughter by act instruction in Daniels differed from the manslaughter by act instruction found to be erroneous and fundamental error in Montgomery, and the Daniels instruction was preliminarily approved by the Florida Supreme Court post-Montgomery, it suffered the same infirmity as the Montgomery instruction, and must suffer the same fate as the erroneous Montgomery instruction. Daniels, 121 So.3d at 419.
Lastly, in Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla.2015), the Florida Supreme Court specifically rejected the State’s argument that the Court’s holdings in Montgomery, Daniels, and Haygood do not apply where the defendant’s sole defense at trial was misidentification. In Griffin, the State contended, and the Second District Court of Appeal concluded, that because misidentification was Griffin’s sole defense at trial, the element of intent was not in dispute and because “fundamental error in a jury instruction only occurs where the instruction pertains to a disputed element of the offense and the error is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider to convict,” no fundamental error had occurred. Griffin v. State, 128 So.3d 88, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citations omitted). In rejecting this argument and quashing the Second District’s opinion, the Florida Supreme Court noted that Griffin did not concede the element of intent and he had no affirmative obligation to dispute intent or any element of the crime. Griffin, 160 So.3d at 68. A defendant may sit mute as it is the State’s burden to prove all of the elements. Id. The fact that a defendant contests one of the elements at trial does not mean he has conceded the remaining elements the State must prove. Id.
Based on these holdings, we reverse Moore’s conviction and sentence for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial because Moore’s jury was provided with the same “infirm” manslaughter by act instruction addressed in Daniels, which the Florida Supreme Court has determined constitutes fundamental error; the evidence supports manslaughter by act *714and it does not support culpable negligence; Moore did not concede that he intended to kill the victim; and Moore was convicted of second-degree murder.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish Kerney v. State, 217 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…e was no guarantee that such relief would have been granted and, under circumstances of this case, it would be manifestly unjust to deny relief similarly accorded to many others in Korney's position. 123 So. 3d at 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…
-
Figueroa v. State, 165 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…63, we hold that the error here was fundamental, as Figueroa did not concede the element of intent and he had no affirmative obligation to dispute intent or any element of the crime. Id.; Page v. State, 164 So. 3d 96, (Fla. 3d DCA ); Moore v. State, 165 So. 3d 712, 2015 WL 2089084, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1075 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2015). Because we find that fundamental error occurred, we reverse and remand for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED…
-
State v. Castro Guerra, 215 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…te that this court and our sister courts have afforded the same relief to similarly-situated defendants upon reconsideration in light of the Florida Supreme 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. Stat…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013)
- Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013)
- Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015)
- Griffin v. State, 128 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)