Lumsdon v. State
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18354
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Willie Lumsdon fired a gun during an altercation between two groups of youths on an I-95 off‑ramp; one person died. Lumsdon claimed he fired a warning shot in self‑defense.
- Charged with second‑degree murder (depraved‑mind, no intent to kill) and throwing a deadly missile; convicted of both counts at trial.
- Jury received standard instructions on second‑degree murder, manslaughter by act (the pre‑Montgomery version that required proof of intent to kill), and manslaughter by culpable negligence (requested by the defendant).
- After appeal and subsequent Florida Supreme Court rulings (Montgomery and Haygood), the case was remanded for reconsideration; the State conceded the manslaughter‑by‑act instruction was erroneous.
- Key legal contention on remand: whether the erroneous manslaughter‑by‑act instruction requires reversal despite the culpable‑negligence instruction and whether the error was preserved by objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lumsdon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the manslaughter‑by‑act jury instruction was erroneous | Instruction was erroneous but harmless because the jury also had culpable‑negligence instruction and evidence could support that finding (citing Haygood/Dawkins) | Instruction was erroneous and, because Lumsdon objected, error must be subject to DiGuilio harmless‑error test and reversed if State cannot prove no reasonable possibility the error contributed to conviction | Court: Instruction was erroneous; because defendant objected, State bore burden to prove harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and failed — reversal of second‑degree murder conviction warranted |
| Whether the presence of a culpable‑negligence instruction cured the manslaughter‑by‑act error | Culpable‑negligence instruction can cure error if evidence reasonably supports it (State relies on Dawkins/Haygood) | If objection was made, giving a correct culpable‑negligence instruction does not cure an erroneous manslaughter‑by‑act instruction when manslaughter by act is a viable one‑step‑removed offense supported by evidence | Court: Dawkins inapplicable because there was an objection; Haygood/Dawkins do not cure the error where defendant objected and State cannot meet DiGuilio standard |
| Whether other convictions remain valid (throwing deadly missile) | N/A | N/A | Court affirmed conviction for throwing a deadly missile |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (manslaughter‑by‑act does not require intent to kill; instruction requiring intent is flawed)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (giving culpable‑negligence instruction does not always cure erroneous manslaughter‑by‑act instruction)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error test: State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict)
- Dawkins v. State, 170 So.3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (where no objection, erroneous manslaughter‑by‑act instruction is reversible only if it constitutes fundamental error; culpable‑negligence instruction may prevent fundamental error if evidence supports it)
- Lugones v. State, 147 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (DiGuilio applies where instruction error was objected to; State bears burden to show harmlessness)
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (applies Montgomery principle to attempted manslaughter instructions)
- Molina v. State, 150 So.3d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (where multiple one‑step‑removed lesser offenses exist, correct instruction on one does not cure erroneous instruction on another)