Thomas Daugherty v. State of Florida
211 So. 3d 29
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Daugherty (17 at time) convicted of second-degree murder (death of Norris Gaynor) and two counts of attempted second-degree murder (Jacques Pierre, Raymond Perez) after group beatings captured partly on video.
- Jury was instructed on first-degree murder and several lesser-included offenses including second-degree murder, manslaughter (with both manslaughter-by-act and manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence language), and third-degree felony murder.
- The manslaughter-by-act instruction erroneously required proof that the defendant "intentionally caused the death," mirroring the flawed instruction addressed in State v. Montgomery.
- Daugherty did not contemporaneously object at trial; he raised the issue on appeal arguing the flawed manslaughter instruction constituted fundamental error because manslaughter is a next lesser offense of second-degree murder.
- The Fourth District held the error was harmless because the verdict form listed third-degree felony murder between second-degree murder and manslaughter, effectively making manslaughter "two steps removed."
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court decision, holding the "step removed" analysis depends on the legal relationship between offenses (not their placement on the verdict form), found fundamental error as to the homicide and the attempted-homicide counts, and remanded for new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Daugherty's Argument | State's/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction (requiring intent to kill) is fundamental error when defendant convicted of second-degree murder | The instruction was material to a disputed element (intent) for a next-lesser offense (manslaughter) and thus fundamental error requiring reversal | Error was harmless because manslaughter was "two steps removed" on the verdict form (third-degree felony murder was listed between the offenses) | Court: Fundamental error occurred; "one step removed" is based on offense relationship, not verdict-form order; new trial on homicide count granted |
| Whether manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence or third-degree felony murder instructions cured the manslaughter-by-act error | Manslaughter-by-culpable-negligence or third-degree felony murder could cure error | Trial court/State relied on those instructions to avoid reversal | Court: Culpable negligence unsupported by evidence; third-degree felony murder instruction wording prevented full consideration; error not cured |
| Whether erroneous attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction (required intent to kill) is fundamental error for attempted second-degree murder convictions | Instruction implicated intent, a disputed element, and was one step removed from attempted second-degree murder → fundamental error | State argued other lesser offense instructions (e.g., aggravated battery) removed harm | Court: Following Williams, the attempted manslaughter instruction was fundamentally erroneous; new trials ordered for attempted-homicide counts |
| Whether verdict-form layout can determine "one step removed" analysis | N/A | Verdict-form ordering determines whether an offense is one step removed | Court: Rejected—step-removed analysis depends on substantive relationship between offenses, not where placed on verdict form |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (erroneous manslaughter-by-act instruction requiring intent is fundamental error when one step removed and intent disputed)
- Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2005) (discusses harmless-error vs. fundamental-error in omitted lesser-included instructions)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction requiring intent was fundamental error when one step removed)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (related district-court decision addressing manslaughter instruction issues)
- Delva v. State, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1991) (contemporaneous-objection rule and fundamental-error standard)
- Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (clarifies materiality requirement for fundamental error)
- Herrington v. State, 538 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1989) (recognizes third-degree felony murder can be a next lesser offense under certain circumstances)
- Taylor v. State, 608 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1992) (defines category-one and category-two lesser-included offenses)
- Echols v. State, 484 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1986) (discusses step-removed lesser-included relationships on verdict forms)