Castor v. State
| Decision Date | 05 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 52873,52873 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 701 |
| Parties | Charles CASTOR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
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.
The trial judge re-instructed on second and third degree murder, on manslaughter, and 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 the court submit to counsel all proposed responses to a jury's questions.
As a general matter, a reviewing court will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal. Dorminey v. State, 314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975). Where the alleged error is giving or failing to give a particular jury instruction, we have invariably required the assertion of a timely objection. Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367 (1947); see Williams v. State, 285 So.2d 13 (Fla.1973). The requirement of a contemporaneous objection is based on practical necessity and basic fairness in the operation of a judicial system. It places the trial judge on notice that error may have been committed, and provides him an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings. Delay and an unnecessary use of the appellate process result from a failure to cure early that which must be cured eventually.
To meet the objectives of any contemporaneous objection rule, an objection must be sufficiently specific both to apprise the trial judge of the putative error and to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal. See Rivers v. State, 307 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA), Cert. denied, 316 So.2d 285 (Fla.1975); York v. State, 232 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
These considerations compel us to conclude that in re-instruction cases like the present one, objections must be explicit. They must direct the attention of the trial judge to the purported error in a way which will allow him to respond in a timely fashion.
The record in the case before us highlights the problems posed by counsel's inexactitude. Trial counsel for Castor stated to the judge that the jury should be recharged on all legal definitions the jury may want and any lesser included charges, but he neither signaled the judge before nor after re-instruction that, for completeness, Hedges required that the instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide should also be restated. Nor did trial counsel object, before or after re-instruction, to the trial court's failure to follow our rule regarding the procedure for submitting to counsel all responses to a jury's questions. His failure to do either not only prevented the judge from correcting an inadvertent error, but it produced the delay and systemic cost which result from invoking both levels of the state's appellate structure for the application of a legal principle which was known and unambiguous at the time of trial. Except in the rare cases of fundamental error, moreover,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State
...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......
-
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.
...with the alternative of altering or modifying a decision or of ordering a more fully developed record for review. In Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978), this Court similarly The requirement of a contemporaneous objection is based on practical necessity and basic fairness in the ......
-
Phillips v. State
...Phillips did not object. Thus, any issue regarding the admission of the autopsy photographs was not preserved. See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978). Therefore, appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise this unpreserved issue on appeal. See Rutherford,......
-
Connolly v. State
...and basic fairness in the operation of a judicial system.’ ” Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992, 1001 (Fla.2007) (quoting Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978) ). At no time prior to the jury's verdict did the defendant raise a challenge or an objection to the reclassification of the mu......
-
Misdemeanor defense
...error may have been committed and provides him an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings. [ Castor v. State , 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978).] §17:212 Motions for Judgment of Acquittal Where the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, a motion for a judgmen......
-
Preserving error in jury trials: rules to remember.
...v. Birmingham, 539 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1989); Squires v. State, 450 So. 2d 208 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892 (1984); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. (21) See Luthi v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 672 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996). (22) See Page v. Cory Corp., 347 So. 2d 817 ......
-
The Preservation of Error During Voir Dire.
...ADMIN. ORDER NO. AOSC20-31 (Amendment 1). (3) Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 939-40 (Fla. 2005). (4) Id. (quoting Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. (5) The right to challenge jurors for cause has been codified in Rule 1.431(c). Also note that certain persons are automatically di......
-
The trial is the beginning of your appeal.
...So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999). (15) Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1016 (Fla. 2000); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. (16) Brack v. State, 919 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2006)(Stipulation to deposition and no objection to use at trial constitutes a ......