State of Florida v. Damani Spencer
216 So. 3d 481
Fla.2017Background
- Defendant Damani Spencer convicted of attempted second-degree murder (two counts), attempted robbery, and carrying a concealed firearm arising from a gunshots-during-a-robbery incident; he admitted in a video statement involvement but trial defense was misidentification/denial he was the shooter.
- Trial court read the standard attempted-manslaughter-by-act instruction but omitted the portions explaining that attempted homicide must be "not justifiable or excusable," and did not read separate justifiable/excusable attempted-homicide instructions.
- Defense counsel did not object to the omitted instructions and did not request the complete manslaughter instruction; counsel conceded a crime occurred but argued the State had not proven Spencer committed it.
- The First District reversed Spencer’s attempted-murder convictions based on State v. Lucas, holding omission of justifiable/excusable homicide instruction is fundamental error when conviction is for manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed.
- Florida Supreme Court affirmed the First District: reaffirmed Lucas rule, declined to recede, but carved a new narrow exception where a defendant expressly concedes that the homicide/attempted homicide is neither justified nor excusable.
- Because neither Lucas/Armstrong waiver nor the new express-concession exception applied to Spencer, the Court held the omission was fundamental error and approved reversal/remand for retrial on the attempted-murder counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of justifiable/excusable attempted-homicide instructions is fundamental error when defendant convicted of attempted manslaughter or an offense one step removed | Spencer: omission is fundamental error per Lucas; no objection needed because error is structural to manslaughter’s definition | State: no evidence supported justifiable/excusable attempt; omission harmless when issue undisputed or no evidentiary basis; defendant acquiesced by failing to object | Court: Affirmed Lucas—omission is fundamental error where conviction is manslaughter or a greater offense not more than one step removed; reversible here because no applicable waiver or express concession |
| Whether Lucas/Armstrong waiver applies when defense counsel did not object but did not affirmatively request the omission | Spencer: mere silence does not constitute waiver; Lucas/Armstrong requires affirmative request/agreement | State: counsel’s failure to object should bar relief absent evidence jury could find justification/excuse | Court: Lucas/Armstrong waiver requires affirmative agreement or request; mere acquiescence or silence does not invoke the exception |
| Whether there should be an additional exception when defendant expressly concedes at trial that the homicide/attempted homicide was neither justified nor excusable | State: where defendant expressly concedes absence of justification/excuse, omitted instruction is not fundamental because element undisputed | Spencer: did not expressly concede absence of justification/excuse (only conceded a crime occurred and disputed identity) | Court: Recognized new narrow exception—no fundamental error if defendant expressly concedes attempted homicide was not justified or excusable; not applicable here |
| Whether failure to instruct on justifiable/excusable attempted homicide can be harmless when evidence negates any justification or excuse | State: omission should be harmless when record contains no evidence of justification/excuse | Spencer: statutory structure makes lack of justification fundamental to manslaughter definition | Court: Rejected harmless-error approach for this class of instruction under Lucas; mandated instruction absent waiver or express concession |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lucas, 645 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1994) (failure to instruct on justifiable/excusable homicide is fundamental error when conviction is manslaughter or an offense one step removed)
- Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (contemporaneous objection rule; unpreserved instructional error reviewed only for fundamental error)
- State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (definition of fundamental error; error must reach validity of trial)
- Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla. 2015) (defense of misidentification does not concede elements such as intent; a defendant may expressly concede elements removing them from dispute)
- Sanders v. State, 946 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2006) (juror pardon doctrine critique; possibility of jury pardon cannot alone establish prejudice in ineffective-assistance collateral claims)
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (manslaughter as a residual offense; discussion of jury pardon doctrine)
- Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1960) (formulation of fundamental error standard)