State of Florida v. Nicolas Dominique
215 So. 3d 1227
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Nicolas Dominique was tried for first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder for shooting Dwayne Clementson after chasing him and firing a gun.
- The trial court instructed the jury on first- and second-degree murder, manslaughter by act, and manslaughter by culpable negligence. The manslaughter-by-act instruction incorrectly required an intent-to-kill element (the Montgomery error).
- No contemporaneous objection was made to the erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction at trial.
- This Court previously held in Montgomery that the standard manslaughter-by-act instruction is erroneous and in Haygood that the error is fundamental when the culpable-negligence alternative is unsupported by the evidence and the defendant is convicted of an offense one step removed from manslaughter.
- On remand from this Court, the Fourth District in Dominique II held the erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction was per se fundamental error even though a culpable-negligence instruction had been given and arguably supported by the evidence, and certified conflict with the Third District's decision in Dawkins.
- This Court granted review, concluded the evidence here reasonably supported manslaughter by culpable negligence, held the culpable-negligence instruction cured the Montgomery error under Haygood, quashed Dominique II, and approved Dawkins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving the erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction is per se fundamental error when the jury convicts of an offense one step removed from manslaughter | State: Fourth District read Haygood to make the Montgomery error always reversible regardless of supporting culpable-negligence evidence | Dominique: Haygood does not require reversal where a correct culpable-negligence instruction was given and evidence reasonably supports it | Court: Not per se. If evidence reasonably supports manslaughter by culpable negligence and that instruction is given, the culpable-negligence instruction can cure the Montgomery error |
| Standard for reviewing unpreserved jury-instruction errors | State: error review is de novo and subject to fundamental-error doctrine | Dominique: fundamental-error standard applies; must show error "pertinent or material" to jury's verdict | Court: De novo review; unpreserved errors are reviewed only for fundamental error per Delva/Brown standard |
| Role of intent and availability of nonintentional lesser offenses in cure analysis | State: intent is always material in homicide prosecutions; some court readings suggested any manslaughter-by-act error always material | Dominique: where jury could choose a nonintentional alternative supported by evidence, intent error may be cured | Court: Intent is material, but cure analysis must consider whether a viable nonintentional lesser offense (e.g., culpable negligence) was supported by the evidence |
| Whether Griffin altered Haygood's rule about curing Montgomery error | State: Fourth District relied on Griffin to treat manslaughter-by-act error as per se fundamental | Dominique: Griffin concerned misidentification defense and did not overrule or limit Haygood | Court: Griffin did not modify Haygood; Griffin addressed different issue and does not preclude cure when culpable-negligence is supported |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (standard manslaughter-by-act instruction erroneously imposed intent-to-kill element)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (Montgomery error is fundamental where culpable-negligence alternative is unsupported and defendant is convicted of an offense one step removed)
- Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015) (misidentification defense does not waive dispute over intent; intent remains central to determining degree of homicide)
- Delva v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (fundamental-error test: error must be pertinent or material to jury's ability to convict)
- Dawkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (where culpable-negligence instruction was given and evidence reasonably supports it, Montgomery error is not per se fundamental)
- Dominique v. State, 171 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quashed by the Court)