Smith v. State, 145 So. 3d 972

Smith sought discretionary review after our affirmance of a second-degree murder judgment; the Florida Supreme Court stayed consideration pending Haygood.
Haygood held that an erroneous manslaughter by act instruction cannot be cured by a culpable negligence manslaughter instruction when the evidence supports manslaughter by act but not culpable negligence.
Haygood remanded for reconsideration; this court ordered supplemental briefing to apply Haygood to Smith.
In Smith, the focus was on Smith’s state of mind—whether second-degree murder, manslaughter by act, or self-defense—rather than a clear culpable negligence theory.
There was no evidence to support manslaughter by culpable negligence; thus the culpable negligence instruction did not render the manslaughter by act instruction immaterial.
The opinion distinguishes Saldana; under Haygood, because the facts could be interpreted as intentional or accidental firing, Haygood controls, resulting in reverse and remand for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haygood governs the disposition	Smith asserts Haygood controls.	State argues Saldana distinguishes the case.	Haygood controls; reverse and remand.
Does culpable negligence instruction cure error	Haygood shows it cannot cure the error.	Defense contends instruction can render error immaterial in some facts.	Culpable negligence instruction does not render the error immaterial; fundamental error remains.

Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (culpable negligence instruction cannot cure erroneous manslaughter by act when facts support act but not negligence)
Smith v. State, 43 So.3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirmed second-degree murder; pre-Haygood posture)
Smith v. State, 137 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 2014) (Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Haygood)
Saldana v. State, 139 So.3d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (factually distinguished from Smith; jury questions differed on intent and self-defense)