Gangapersad Ramroop v. State of Florida, 214 So. 3d 657

Early morning July 4, 2013: Orlando police attempted to stop Ramroop; a chase followed and Ramroop allegedly fired at Officer Christopher Brillant.
Ramroop struck another vehicle, killing its driver (Robert Hunter); he was charged separately with first-degree murder (felony murder) based on the attempt on Officer Brillant and with attempted first-degree murder of the officer (count by information) plus related firearm offenses.
Trial verdict: guilty of first‑degree felony murder (for Hunter’s death) and guilty of the lesser‑included offense of attempted second‑degree murder of a law‑enforcement officer; the jury made a special finding that the victim was a police officer, but instructions did not require the jury to find Ramroop knew the victim’s status.
The Fifth District reversed only the special finding and remanded for resentencing on the lesser included offense (treating §782.065 as a reclassification statute that does not create a separate substantive offense).
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether §782.065 creates a substantive offense requiring knowledge that the victim was an officer and to determine the proper remedy for the erroneous jury instruction.

Issue	Ramroop's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Does §782.065 create a separate substantive offense that includes knowledge the victim was a law‑enforcement officer as an element?	§782.065 requires knowledge and thus defines a substantive aggravated offense; jury must find knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.	§782.065 is only a reclassification/enhancement provision that increases penalty after conviction of the underlying offense.	§782.065 is a reclassification statute that creates a separate substantive offense; knowledge of the victim’s status is an essential element.
What is the proper remedy for an erroneous jury instruction omitting the knowledge element?	The omission is fundamental error and requires reversal and a new trial on the charged offenses.	Remand for entry of judgment for the lesser included offense and resentencing (no new trial).	The error was fundamental and per se reversible; vacate attempted‑second‑degree murder and related first‑degree felony murder convictions and remand for a new trial.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule that any fact increasing punishment must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements for jury)
Wright v. State, 586 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.) (victim’s officer status is essential element under predecessor statute)
Thompson v. State, 695 So. 2d 691 (Fla.) (knowledge of officer status is required element)
Darst v. State, 837 So. 2d 394 (Fla.) (§784.07 is a reclassification statute that creates a substantive crime)
Mills v. State, 822 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.) (construing reclassification statute as creating substantive offense)
Montgomery v. State, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla.) (rules on lesser‑included offenses and reversal when error pertains to an element one degree removed)