McNeal v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12444
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- McNeal was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, assault, three counts of aggravated stalking by repeated telephone calls, and attempted second-degree murder with a weapon.
- The State charged Demontaye Simmons' July 2005 murder; trial occurred in 2009.
- The trial court instructed the jury on first-degree murder and the lesser offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter without objection.
- The manslaughter instruction stated that proof required Demontaye Simmons' death and either intentional act causing death or death caused by McNeal's culpable negligence.
- McNeal argued the instruction was fundamentally erroneous under Montgomery because it required an intent to kill.
- The appellate court found any error harmless because the jury convicted of first-degree murder and could have found second-degree murder, which was not the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the manslaughter instruction was fundamental error | McNeal contends the phrase required an intent to kill. | McNeal argues the instruction impermissibly compelled intent to kill. | Any error harmless; conviction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (manslaughter instruction fundamental error when two steps removed from first-degree murder)
- State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (harmless error standard for instructional defects)
- Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2005) (two-plus degree gaps affect reversibility; harmless error analysis applies)
- In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Instruction 7.7, 41 So.3d 853 (Fla. 2010) (amended manslaughter instruction language to require acts caused death)