Richards v. State
128 So. 3d 959
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Richards was retried for attempted second-degree murder after a prior conviction (attempted second-degree murder) was overturned for a deadly-force instruction error.
- The stabbing victim, Russell, was stabbed in the neck; Richards claimed self-defense, testifying Russell attacked and grabbed his throat.
- Other witnesses and a post-arrest statement suggested Richards acted with rage and expressed hope he killed Russell, undermining the self-defense claim.
- At retrial Richards requested and the court gave the then-standard attempted voluntary manslaughter (by act) instruction, even though that offense was two steps below the charged offense on the verdict form.
- Richards did not object to the manslaughter instruction at trial; after conviction he appealed, arguing the instruction was flawed and its use constituted fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Richards' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the standard attempted manslaughter (by act) instruction was flawed | Instruction was flawed (required intent to kill) and its use was fundamental error warranting new trial | Instructional flaw recognized in Williams but not necessarily fundamental here | Court: Instruction was flawed per Williams, but not fundamental error in this case |
| Whether the instructional error was "fundamental" when the defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder | Flaw infected jury’s consideration of lesser offenses and prejudiced verdict | Error not fundamental because conviction was two steps above attempted manslaughter and next-lower offense was properly instructed | Court: Not fundamental because attempted manslaughter was two steps removed from the conviction |
| Whether a defective instruction can be fundamental absent dispute on the defective element | Richards: Instruction error alone requires reversal | State: Fundamental error requires that the flawed element was disputed and material to the jury’s decision | Court: Per Daniels, only fundamental if the defective element was disputed; here intent was undisputed, so not fundamental |
| Whether Richards waived any error by requesting the instruction | Richards: Trial counsel requested instruction as tactic but may still challenge on appeal since error is fundamental | State: Richards affirmatively requested the instruction and thus waived any error | Court: Waived — defense requested the instruction; tactical choice precludes appellate benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (standard attempted manslaughter-by-act instruction is flawed and can be fundamental error in certain cases)
- Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla. 2013) (defective instruction is fundamental only if it pertains to a disputed, material element)
- Armstrong v. State, 579 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1991) (defense-requested erroneous instruction may constitute waiver of appellate challenge)
- Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (prior reversal based on incorrect deadly-force instruction)
- Sanders v. State, 944 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2006) (verdict form ordering of charged and lesser included offenses should follow statutory degrees)