Daniels v. State
72 So. 3d 227
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Daniels was charged with first-degree murder after firing a single shot that hit a bystander and killed her.
- During interrogation Daniels claimed he did not aim to kill anyone and that he intended to hit one of several men approaching with guns.
- At trial, the court instructed on first-degree murder and lesser-included offenses, including second-degree murder and manslaughter by act; manslaughter by culpable negligence was not given.
- The manslaughter by act instruction stated two elements and included language that the defendant need not have premeditated intent to kill, but must have intended to commit an act that caused death.
- Daniels’ counsel argued that there was no premeditation and framed manslaughter as requiring only the act that caused death, not an intent to kill.
- The jury convicted Daniels of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to life with a 25-year minimum term, prompting appeal on the manslaughter by act instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2008 amended manslaughter by act instruction require an intent to kill? | Daniels argues Montgomery required intent to kill and the 2008 amendment failed to cure this deficiency. | State contends the 2008 amendment clarified the requisite intent as to an act that caused death, not an intent to kill. | No; the 2008 instruction did not require an intent to kill. |
| Was any error waived or invited by defense strategy? | Daniels argues defense acquiescence to the instruction did not waive fundamental error. | State contends no waiver due to acquiescence and counsel’s discussion of manslaughter details. | Not waived; not dispositive to error finding. |
| Is the 2008 amended instruction unconstitutional or fundamentally erroneous? | Daniels contends the instruction still requires intent to kill as in Montgomery. | State maintains the amendment cured the defect and aligns with Montgomery’s framework. | The 2008 amended instruction did not require proof of intent to kill; not fundamental error. |
| Does the 2010 amendment alter the legal conclusion about the 2008 instruction? | Not explicitly argued here beyond continuity with 2008 amendment. | 2010 amendment is not materially different to render the 2008 language defective. | No material difference; 2008 instruction remains non-fundamentally erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (held that pre-2008 instruction error existed regarding intent to kill)
- In re Amends. to Std. Jury Instrs., 41 So.3d 853, 41 So.3d 853 (Fla. 2010) (amendment clarifies the required intent for manslaughter by act)
- Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (1st DCA held 2008 instruction erroneously stated intent to kill)
- Moore v. State, 57 So.3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (3rd DCA concluded 2008 amendment not reversible error when other instructions given)
- Morgan v. State, 42 So.3d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (addressed 2008 amendment and consistency with 2008 amendment on manslaughter by act)