Blandon v. State, 94-1080
| Citation | 657 So.2d 1198 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1080,94-1080 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1421 Louis BLANDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Sean K. Ahmed, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Louis Blandon appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer in count I, burglary of a conveyance in count II, and third-degree grand theft in count III. 1 We affirm his convictions for counts II and III, but we reverse and remand for a new trial as to count I.
A witness called the police after observing Blandon's codefendant and another young man break into a car to steal a cellular phone. A Winter Park police officer, Steve Bracknell, arrived and attempted to arrest Blandon's accomplices. After Bracknell drew his handgun and ordered them to stop they attempted to escape in a car being driven by Blandon. Blandon drove toward Bracknell, who fired several shots at the car as it approached him. In the process of evading capture, Blandon struck Bracknell with his car. The police officer continued firing at Blandon and shot him in the head, thigh, and elbow. Blandon escaped but was later arrested in Miami. He was returned to Orange County where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced. Blandon was sentenced in count I to 25 years in the Department of Corrections ("DOC") with a mandatory minimum of 25 years; in count II to two to five years in the DOC; and in count III to five years in the DOC, with all terms to run concurrently.
The sole issue cognizable on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it failed to give the standard jury instruction on justifiable and excusable homicide in count I, attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. Blandon argues that the trial court erred when it failed to give the instruction on justifiable and excusable homicide contained in the introduction to homicide in the standard jury instructions. The instruction provides definitions for both justifiable and excusable homicide and indicates that it is to be read in all murder and manslaughter cases. The trial court instructed the jury on first-degree murder for both premeditated and first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and third-degree murder. The instruction on justifiable and excusable homicide, however, was never requested by Blandon, nor was it read by the trial court. Even though Blandon never requested the instruction for justifiable and excusable homicide, we hold that the trial court erred by not reading it.
It is fundamental error for the trial court not to read this instruction because, in its absence, the jury is not fully instructed as to what constitutes lawful acts versus unlawful acts. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide are to be read in all murder and manslaughter cases. See State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 309-10 (Fla.1990). This court has held that the trial court errs when it fails to give the mandatory standard instruction contained in the introduction to homicide even where the defendant does not request to either limit or eliminate the initial homicide instructions. The absence of an objection does not waive any error occasioned by the failure to read the instruction. Stallings v. State, 634 So.2d 784, 785-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Jurors need to know what constitutes a criminal act so that they may differentiate between a criminal and noncriminal act. The instruction must be read even if there is no basis in fact for the charge. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spencer
...as given, the exception does not apply."); Ortiz v. State , 682 So.2d 217, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("As we held in Blandon [ v. State , 657 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ], the mere failure to object to the omission of a justifiable homicide charge in an attempted murder case does not cons......
-
Mohammed v. State
...reversal when a trial court did not issue the Introduction to (Attempted) Homicide instruction. See, e.g. , Blandon v. State , 657 So. 2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). But if Blandon and the cases relying upon it 2 stood for the proposition that a failure to issue the Introduction to (Att......
-
Beckham v. State, 1D03-0410.
...murder." "The absence of an objection does not waive any error occasioned by the failure to read the instruction." Blandon v. State, 657 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The Fifth District Court justified this rule as follows: Jurors need to know what constitutes a criminal act so that......
-
Ingram v. Sec'y
...conduct—that is, they were aware of the court's omission or error, and affirmatively agreed to it or asked for it. See Blandon v. State, 657 So. 2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Fundamental error analysis would not apply if the defendant knowingly waived the [objection]," that is, if "de......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...to give the instructions is not fundamental error. Eford v. State, 993 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) receding from Blandon v. State , 657 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) and Smith v. State , 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) The state is not required in a burglary case to allege the spe......