Calvin Weatherspoon v. State of Florida
214 So. 3d 578
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Weatherspoon and codefendants were charged in a multi-count information for a 2008 Dunkin’ Donuts robbery that included three counts of attempted first‑degree murder (premeditated) but did not allege attempted felony murder under section 782.051.
- During trial the State sought and the court gave an attempted‑felony‑murder jury instruction; the prosecutor argued both attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder theories.
- Defense objected at trial that attempted felony murder was not charged in the information; the jury convicted Weatherspoon on the attempted first‑degree murder counts and he received life.
- The Fourth District affirmed; a dissenting judge argued attempted felony murder is a separate statutory offense that must be charged. The Fourth District certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court held attempted felony murder (§ 782.051) is a distinct crime with different elements and greater potential punishment than attempted premeditated murder, so the State must specifically charge it to obtain a jury instruction or prosecute on that theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State may instruct and argue attempted felony murder when information charged only attempted premeditated murder | Weatherspoon: conviction under an uncharged statutory theory denies notice and due process; prejudiced trial strategy | State: prior case law lets felony‑murder theory arise from a premeditated murder charge; defendant had notice from discovery and trial conduct | Held: No — attempted felony murder is a separate statutory crime with distinct elements and punishments, so it must be specifically charged; failure prejudiced defendant |
| Applicability of Sloan/Killen/O’Callaghan line (premeditated murder includes felony‑murder theory) to attempted crimes | Weatherspoon: Sloan line inapplicable because Legislature created separate attempted felony murder statute after Gray | State: Sloan line should extend; the defendant was on notice | Held: Sloan line inapposite—those cases addressed murder and felony murder within same statute; attempted offenses now reside in separate statutes with different elements |
| Prejudice requirement for defective information | Weatherspoon: preserved objection; trial strategy and verdict ambiguity caused actual prejudice | State: any error harmless because defendant knew theory from discovery and court practice | Held: Prejudice found—defense admitted underlying felony based on premeditation theory; general verdict and jury questions made it impossible to know which theory was relied on |
| Whether prior appellate decisions (Fourth and Fifth Districts) controlling | State: relied on district court precedent permitting instruction | Weatherspoon: those cases misapplied precedent post‑Gray and § 782.051 | Held: Disapproved Dempsey and Florence to extent inconsistent; quashed Fourth District decision in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. State, 69 So. 871 (Fla. 1915) (held indictment for premeditated murder sufficed to support felony‑murder theory when in same statute)
- Killen v. State, 92 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1957) (continued Sloan principle that felony may substitute for premeditation)
- O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1983) (indictment for premeditated murder sufficient to support felony‑murder prosecution)
- State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995) (held attempted felony murder as then conceived did not exist)
- Price v. State, 995 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2008) (discusses constitutional notice and prejudice standard for defective information)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 859 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2003) (general jury verdict cannot stand if one prosecution theory is legally inadequate)