GLENN JACKSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Appellant appealed a conviction for attempted second degree murder, raising on motion for rehearing whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to provide a heat of passion jury instruction. The appellate court denied the motion, relying on precedent establishing that failure to give a heat of passion instruction is not fundamental error.
The failure to give a heat of passion jury instruction is not fundamental error, particularly where the defendant fails to request such instruction or object to the standard jury instructions given. The standard jury instructions adequately address the applicable legal standards, and the failure to give a special jury instruction on heat of passion does not constitute error.
[1] Failure to give a heat of passion jury instruction does not constitute fundamental error where the defendant does not request the instruction or object to the standard ju…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Kaczmar contends that the trial court fundamentally erred in not sua sponte providing a special jury instruction on heat of passion. This claim is without merit. Kaczmar failed to request a special jury instruction or object when the trial court read the standard jury instructions, and because no fundamental error occurred, this issue is not preserved for review.”
Court's explanation of why failure to give heat of passion instruction is not fundamental error
Appellant was tried and convicted of attempted second degree murder in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The ap…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017-CF-012412-AWB.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Claire V. Madill, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION AND/OR REHEARING PER CURIAM.
The motion for written opinion and/or rehearing is denied. GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion. WARNER, J., specially concurring.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant focuses on the issue of whether the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to give a heat of passion jury instruction in appellant’s trial for attempted second degree murder. Although there is also an issue as to whether such an instruction was authorized on the facts, the central issue is whether it can be fundamental error not to give this special jury instruction. The supreme court has answered that question in Kaczmar v. State, 104 So. 3d 990, 1005-06 (Fla. 2012), concluding that it is not fundamental error:
Kaczmar contends that the trial court fundamentally erred in not sua sponte providing a special jury instruction on heat of passion. This claim is without merit. Kaczmar failed to request a special jury instruction or object when the trial court read the standard jury instructions, and because no fundamental error occurred, this issue is not preserved for review. See Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental error).
* * * Final Upon Release; No Motion For Rehearing Will Be Entertained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2001)
- Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1993)
- Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2006)
- Kaczmar v. State, 104 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2012)