Daniels v. State
121 So. 3d 409
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Daniels shot at a man during a confrontation, but a bystander Amanda Fanter was killed; Daniels was charged with first-degree murder.
- The trial used the 2008 standard jury instruction for manslaughter by act, which included an element requiring intent to cause death (and added language about intent to commit an act causing death).
- Daniels challenged the manslaughter instruction as erroneous; the Second District affirmed, finding the 2008 instruction not erroneous and that it did not require intent to kill.
- The First District in Riesel held the 2008 instruction is not materially different from the one found to be fundamental error in Montgomery, because it still required intentional killing; Riesel conflicted with Daniels.
- This Court conducted de novo review to determine whether the 2008 instruction wrongly required intent to kill and whether such error was fundamental; concluded the instruction remained an improper requirement and that the error was fundamental, warranting a new trial.
- Concluding relief: quash Daniels and remand, approving the First District’s Riesel decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 2008 manslaughter by act instruction improperly require intent to kill? | Daniels | State | Yes; the instruction impermissibly required intent to kill. |
| Was the error fundamental under the contemporaneous objection rule? | Daniels | State | Yes; the error was fundamental because it affected disputed element and trial integrity. |
| Does the conflict with Riesel mandate reversal and remand? | Daniels | State | Yes; the Court quashes Daniels and approves Riesel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010) (held 2006 instruction error for requiring intent to kill; 2008 amendment insufficient to cure that error; fundamental error when escalated from manslaughter to murder)
- Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (held 2008 instruction still erroneous; conflict with Montgomery)
- Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781 (Fla.2005) (reasoning on when a petty error becomes reversible when lesser offenses are involved)
- Delva v. State, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991) (contemporaneous objection rule and fundamental error standard)
- Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008) (defining fundamental error and preservation principles in jury instructions)
- In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 7.7, 75 So.3d 210 (Fla.2011) (discusses subsequent amendments to the manslaughter by act instruction)