Griffin v. State, 128 So. 3d 88

Griffin was tried for second-degree murder with a firearm and convicted in Florida.
During jury instructions, the court read the standard manslaughter by act instruction as a lesser included offense.
That instruction, dated from 2006, required an intent to kill, which the Florida Supreme Court later held erroneous under Montgomery.
The State argued the error was not fundamental since Griffin was prosecuted and convicted as charged, not for a lesser included offense.
The State ultimately argued the issue should follow Joyner v. State, but the court rejected that distinction and held Montgomery controls.
Eyewitness testimony showed Griffin opened fire from his car; Griffin admitted to approaching and speaking with the victim, claiming mistaken identity as his defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Montgomery error was fundamental	Griffin	Griffin	Not fundamental; no disputed element of intent

State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (standard manslaughter by act instruction requires no intent when appropriate)
Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla. 2013) ( Montgomery instruction not fundamental if intent disputed)
Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (fundamental error requires a disputed element)
Montgomery v. State, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (reiterates error framework for manslaughter by act instruction)
Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (distinguishes Montgomery on basis of conviction as charged)
Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (non-fundamental error where only disputed issue is identity)
Battle v. State, 911 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2005) (identity defense framework for fundamental error)
Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (drug possession knowledge element error not fundamental when identity is sole defense)
State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (standard for fundamental error in jury instructions)