Castor v. State, No. 52873
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | ENGLAND |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 701 |
| Parties | Charles CASTOR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 52873 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1978 |
Page 701
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
As Corrected Dec. 19, 1978.
Page 702
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
ENGLAND, Chief Justice.
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal in this case, reported at 351 So.2d 375, is properly brought to us 1 to decide whether a contemporaneous objection is essential for appellate review when a trial judge re-instructs in response to a jury's request in a homicide case but omits a portion of the homicide instructions which we have declared essential for the jury's complete understanding. The district court essentially held that review is foreclosed when defense counsel has failed to "clearly request" re-instruction on homicide exclusions, despite our announcement in Hedges v. State, 172 So.2d 824 (Fla.1965), that a failure to do so is error.
In Hedges we said:
"(I)n order to supply a complete definition of manslaughter as a degree of unlawful homicide it is necessary to include also a definition of the exclusions. . . .
It is proper for a judge to limit the repetition to the charges requested. (Citation omitted.) However, the repeated charges should be complete on the subject involved. The giving of a partial instruction fails to inform the jury fully and often leads to undue emphasis on the part given as against the part omitted. . . .
In the instant case when the judge repeated his charges on degrees of homicide he should have included the requested definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. Failure to do so erroneously left with the jury an incomplete, and, potentially misleading instruction. " 2
Charles Castor was charged by information with second degree murder. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on second and third degree murder, on manslaughter, on lesser included offenses, 3 on justifiable and excusable homicide, and on self-defense. After deliberating for approximately thirty minutes, the jury indicated that it desired re-instruction. Before the jury was brought back into the courtroom, this colloquy was held between the court and counsel:
"The Court: Counsel, do you think that we should that I should read all of the definitions to them or would both of you stipulate and agree that only those that they request would be read to them are necessary to read?
(Castor's attorney): I think we should read them all.
The Court: All right, bring them in.
(Castor's attorney): You're talking about all lesser included offenses, not the entire instructions.
(Prosecuting attorney): We're not sure exactly what they want yet."
The jury then assembled in the courtroom and asked
"to have the definition of the various charges read to us again, second degree, third degree, manslaughter."
The trial judge re-instructed on second and third degree murder, on manslaughter, and
Page 703
on the lesser included offenses, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, battery and assault. He did not, however, re-instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide. Following further deliberations the jury returned a verdict finding Castor guilty of murder in the third degree.Castor appealed to the district court the trial court's failure to re-instruct on justifiable and excusable homicide. The district court found the point not properly preserved and affirmed Castor's conviction. 4
Castor asserts here that his trial counsel did all that could reasonably be required to request the omitted instructions, and that he was barred from doing more by the trial court's failure to follow our requirement, found in the rules of criminal procedure, 5 that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herzog v. State, No. 61513
...(Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 333-34 Even had the record been properly preserved for review, the result in the instant cas......
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, No. 3D09-389
...unnecessary use of the appellate process result from a failure to cure early that which mustPage 86be cured eventually.Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978). Contrary to the majority's repeated representations that the State violated its discovery obligations by failing to disclo......
-
Braddy v. State, No. SC07–2174.
...of the State's closing argument—is insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal absent a contemporaneous objection); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978) (noting that “[t]o meet the objectives of any contemporaneous objection rule, an objection must be sufficiently specific both ......
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, Nos. 3D09–389
...and an unnecessary use of the appellate process result from a failure to cure early that which must be cured eventually.Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978). Contrary to the majority's repeated representations that the State violated its discovery obligations by failing to disclos......
-
Sochor v. Florida, No. 91-5843
...that it may be urged on appeal, though not properly presented below, the error must amount to a denial of due process"); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 704, n. 7 (Fla.1978) (same); State v. Smith, 240 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1970) (same). 7. The Florida Supreme Court's statement that none of t......
-
Herzog v. State, No. 61513
...(Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 333-34 Even had the record been properly preserved for review, the result in the instant cas......
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, No. 3D09-389
...unnecessary use of the appellate process result from a failure to cure early that which mustPage 86be cured eventually.Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978). Contrary to the majority's repeated representations that the State violated its discovery obligations by failing to disclo......
-
Braddy v. State, No. SC07–2174.
...of the State's closing argument—is insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal absent a contemporaneous objection); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978) (noting that “[t]o meet the objectives of any contemporaneous objection rule, an objection must be sufficiently specific both ......