REBECCA JACKSON, 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.
Rebecca Jackson appealed her conviction for manslaughter, arguing the trial court committed reversible error by failing to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide when it repeated instructions on manslaughter at the jury's request. The court affirmed, holding that while the trial court erred, the error was not fundamental because the defendant failed to preserve the issue and substantial evidence supported the manslaughter conviction.
The trial court erred in failing to reinstruct on excusable homicide when repeating manslaughter instructions, but the error was not fundamental because: (1) the defendant failed to preserve the issue by neither requesting the reinstruction nor objecting to its omission; and (2) substantial evidence supported the manslaughter conviction independent of the alleged error.
[1] A trial court's failure to reinstruct a jury on excusable homicide, after re-instructing on manslaughter at the jury's request, constitutes fundamental error only if the…
[2] An error in jury instructions is not considered fundamental error justifying appellate review without preservation if substantial evidence exists to support the jury's ve…
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“When a trial court repeats, at the jury's request, instructions on manslaughter, it is reversible error for the court not to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide if the defendant preserved the error for appellate review by either requesting a reinstruction on excusable homicide, or objecting to the trial court's failure to give such instruction.”
Establishes the rule that while the trial court's failure to reinstruct may be reversible error, it requires preservation of the issue by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on multiple cha…
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 Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
CROSS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant, Rebecca Jackson, appeals a judgment of conviction for manslaughter. We affirm.
Appellant-defendant, Rebecca Jackson, was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on murder in the second degree, manslaughter, aggravated assault, assault and battery, bare assault and excusable homicide. Shortly after beginning its deliberation, the jury requested the court to again define manslaughter. Pursuant to this request, the jury was reinstructed on manslaughter. The defendant did not request that the court reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide, nor did the defendant object to the court’s omission of such instruction.
The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. The trial court entered judgment accordingly and placed the defendant on probation for a period of ten years. It is from this judgment that the defendant appeals.
The question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide when the court repeated, at the jury’s request, instructions on manslaughter. When a trial court repeats, at the jury’s request, instructions on manslaughter, it is reversible error for the court not to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide if the defendant preserved the error for appellate review by either requesting a reinstruction on excusable homicide, or objecting to the trial court’s failure to give such instruction. Clark v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla.App.1974); Martin v. State, 294 So. 2d 414 (Fla.App.1974); Brown v. State, 294 So. 2d 347 (Fla.App.1974); Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965).
Errors committed by a trial court, including errors in connection with the trial court’s failure to give jury instructions, will be reviewed on appeal without preservation of the question in the trial court only if the error is so fundamental as to justify such action, or when the appellate court in its discretion deems the interest of justice so requires. Rule 6.16 F. A.R. (1973). Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1973); Jones v. State, 187 So. 2d 915 (Fla.App.1966). In order for an error in connection with the trial court’s failure to give jury instructions to be of such a fundamental nature as to justify a reversal without preservation of the question for appellate review, the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that the verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error. Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1960); see also Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1971).
In the instant case, the trial court erred in failing to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide when the court repeated, at the jury’s request, instructions on manslaughter. However, this question was never preserved for appellate review. The defendant never requested that the jury be reinstructed on excusable homicide. The defendant never interposed an objection to the trial court’s failure to so reinstruct the jury. It is clear from an examination of the record that the trial court’s error did not necessarily and inescapably produce the jury’s verdict. Substantial evidence was presented at trial from which the jury could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter. The trial court’s failure to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide, when the court repeated at the jury’s request instructions on manslaughter, did not constitute fundamental error.1
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur. . We note for emphasis that the jury was properly instructed on excusable homicide at the conclusion of the evidence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)…e difference is crucial if the doctrine of fundamental error is to remain a limited exception to the requirement that a trial judge must be given an opportunity to correct his own errors. Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960); Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). And see Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1978), pointing out (as was recognized in Hedges) the significance of the differences between original instructions to a jury and subsequent re-instruction. For the case before us, we…
-
Gross v. State, 397 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…usable homicide or an objection to the court’s failure to give such instruction, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Kiley v. State, 356 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We, therefore, limit our discussion of the merits to the failure to rein-struct on justifiable homicide. In Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965), the Supreme Court announced the rule that a reinstruction on manslaughter m…
-
Kiley v. State, 356 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ghter. Therefore, a court may [*329] completely define first degree murder and second degree murder without making any reference to manslaughter and excusable and justifiable homicide.” Notwithstanding, we also note our holding in Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) which held that failure to rein-struct on excusable and justifiable homicide does not constitute fundamental error. In the case at bar no objection was raised, nor reinstruction requested. This being so, the conviction is AFFIRM…
Authorities Cited
- Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973)
- Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1971)
- Chandler Jones and S. Macie Jackson v. State, 187 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Al Featherston v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Brown v. State, 294 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Rayfield Martin v. State, 294 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)