Figueroa v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18183
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant appeals the trial judge's manslaughter jury instruction as fundamental error.
- The court addresses whether the 2008 amended manslaughter instruction was correctly applied.
- Florida districts Daniels (2d DCA) and Morgan (4th DCA) held the 2008 instruction did not constitute fundamental error.
- Montgomery (Florida Supreme Court) held the pre-2008 instruction was fundamental error for requiring intent to kill.
- This court aligns with Daniels and Morgan, distinguishing the 2008/2010 amendments from Montgomery, and certifies conflict with First District opinions Noack, Riesel, Pryor.
- The court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 amended manslaughter by act instruction was fundamental error. | State (Defendant) insists 2008 instruction satisfied Montgomery concerns. | Denied; argues no fundamental error under Daniels/Morgan. | Not fundamental error; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels v. State, 72 So.3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (held 2008 amended instruction not fundamental error)
- Morgan v. State, 42 So.3d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (2008 instruction not fundamental error; 2010 amendment clarified intent)
- Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (pre-2008 instruction fundamental error; required to prove intent to kill)
- Solano v. State, 76 So.3d 897 (Fla. 2011) (restates Montgomery holding on instruction clarity)
- Noack v. State, 61 So.3d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (First DCA conflict with Daniels/Morgan on 2008 instruction)
- Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (instruction not materially distinguishable from Montgomery)
- Pryor v. State, 48 So.3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (First DCA stance conflicting with Daniels/Morgan)
- Moore v. State, 57 So.3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (2008 amended instruction materially differs from Montgomery)