Wyche v. State
170 So. 3d 898
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On March 25, 2010, Quentin Wyche stabbed and killed Kendall Berry outside FIU after a prior daytime altercation between Wyche and Berry’s girlfriend.
- Wyche left the rec center with friends, approached Berry’s group, the two squared off to fight, then Wyche ran back, retrieved scissors from his book bag, and lunged, fatally stabbing Berry while Berry was unarmed.
- Witnesses placed Wyche as the person who armed himself and then threatened Berry after the stabbing; only one disinterested witness actually observed the lunge with the scissors.
- Wyche was tried for second-degree murder; his defense was that he acted in self-defense/under the stand-your-ground statutes.
- On appeal Wyche argued (1) contradictory jury instructions (justifiable deadly force and stand-your-ground) constituted fundamental error, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for acquittal on self-defense grounds, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support second-degree murder.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no fundamental error in the jury instructions, that the State rebutted self-defense, and that evidence supported second-degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions: duty to retreat/stand-your-ground | State: instructions followed statutory law and standard jury instruction 3.6(f) | Wyche: giving both justifiable-deadly-force and stand-your-ground/aggressor provisions created conflict and deprived him of fair trial | No fundamental error; instruction was legally correct and benefitted defendant; Wyche failed to object and participated in drafting it |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to move for judgment of acquittal | State: counsel cannot be faulted for not raising a meritless motion | Wyche: counsel should have moved for acquittal because State did not rebut self-defense | No ineffective assistance — State presented competent evidence rebutting self-defense; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder | State: evidence (arming, stabbing, post-crime threats) shows depraved mind and imminently dangerous act | Wyche: argued murder elements not proven, should be reduced to manslaughter | Affirmed — evidence supported second-degree murder (depraved mind, ill will, indifference to human life) |
Key Cases Cited
- Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2008) (failure to object weighs against finding fundamental error)
- Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1981) (appellate courts should exercise restraint in applying fundamental error)
- Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1970) (discussion of invited error and counsel opportunity to cure)
- Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (criticizing after-the-fact challenges to agreed jury instructions)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2008) (fundamental error standard for defective affirmative-defense instructions)
- Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1988) (affirmative-defense instruction error standard)
- Deparvine v. State, 146 So.3d 1071 (Fla. 2014) (defense counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1999) (jury instructions must be accurate and clear)
- Farmer v. State, 975 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting 3.6(f) may be confusing but sometimes deemed harmless)
- Floyd v. State, 151 So.3d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (criticizing parts of 3.6(f); review noted)