Hill v. State
124 So. 3d 296
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hill appeals a judgment for attempted second-degree murder following his trial for shooting Marquis Robinson during a street brawl.
- The State alleged attempted first-degree murder; Hill claimed misidentification and that another person shot Robinson.
- The trial court instructed on attempted first-degree murder and its lesser-included offenses: attempted second-degree murder and attempted manslaughter by act, plus category 2 offenses aggravated battery and battery.
- Jury convicted of the lesser-included offense of attempted second-degree murder and Hill received a 25-year mandatory minimum based on discharging a firearm causing great bodily harm.
- Hill argues the attempted manslaughter by act instruction was erroneous and fundamental, because it required intent to kill, one step removed from the charged offense.
- This appeal relies on Florida Supreme Court and district court decisions recognizing fundamental error when manslaughter by act is charged as a lesser included offense in a one-step removed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction was fundamental error | Hill (Hill) contends the instruction required intent to kill and was one step removed from the charged crime. | State argues four lesser offenses were available; erroneous instruction was not fundamental. | Yes; fundamental error occurred requiring reversal and remand. |
| Whether additional lesser-included offenses cure the error | Hill contends Haygood/Williams preclude cure by other options. | State asserts jury had other viable lesser offenses and no fundamental error. | No cure; fundamental error established; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010) (manslaughter by act does not require intent to kill; fundamental error when one-step removed)
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla.2013) (same rationale for attempted manslaughter by act as fundamental error when offense not more than one step removed)
- Haygood v. State, 54 So.3d 1035 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (certified question concerning flawed manslaughter-by-act instruction and fundamental error)
- Mueller v. State, 100 So.3d 47 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (instructional error with multiple LIs; court treated as fundamental error)
- Nieves v. State, 22 So.3d 691 (Fla.2d DCA 2009) (line of cases on manslaughter by act vs culpable negligence)