ANTHONY FIGUEROA, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed Anthony Figueroa's second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that an erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted fundamental error when the defendant's sole defense was misidentification and he did not concede the element of intent.
The erroneous manslaughter by act jury instruction constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal and a new trial when the defendant does not concede the element of intent and has no affirmative obligation to dispute intent or any element of the crime.
[1] An erroneous jury instruction on manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental error when the defendant's sole defense is misidentification and the defendant does not conce…
[2] A defendant has no affirmative obligation to dispute intent or any element of a crime when the State bears the burden of proving those elements.
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 giving of an erroneous manslaughter by act jury instruction does establish fundamental error when the defendant's sole defense is misidentification”
Establishes the fundamental error standard from Griffin that applies to this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFigueroa was convicted of second-degree murder. At trial, the jury was instructed on manslaughter using the 2008 interim manslaughter by act instructi…
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 Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Upon remand by the Florida Supreme Court, we reverse Anthony Figueroa’s (“Figueroa”) conviction and sentence for second degree murder and remand for a new trial.
The sole issue on appeal arises from the jury instructions given by the trial court for manslaughter, which was the 2008 interim manslaughter by act instruction approved by the Florida Supreme Court. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2007-10, 997 So.2d 403 (Fla.2008). The question before us is whether that instruction erroneously stated the elements of manslaughter by act, and whether the instruction constitutes fundamental error in the instant case. See Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla.2013); State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010).
Pursuant to Figueroa’s Motion for Rehearing, we withdrew our opinion issued June 25, 2014, and stayed our decision pending disposition of Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla.2015). Subsequently, in Griffin, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that the giving of an erroneous manslaughter by act jury instruction does establish fundamental error when the defendant’s sole defense is misidentification. Because the defendant in Griffin was convicted of second degree murder, an offense only one step removed from manslaughter, and because the defendant did not concede the intent by which the homicide was committed, the Court concluded that proof of that issue remained on the State, and remained in dispute notwithstanding the defendant’s defense of misidentification. Id. at 70. Thus, it was fundamental error to erroneously instruct the jury on manslaughter by act, requiring a new trial. Id.
In accordance with Griffin, 160 So.3d 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
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2007-10, 997 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2008)
- Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013)
- Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015)
- Baron Moore v. State, 165 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Kern R. Davis v. State, 164 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Tedrick Page v. State, 164 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)