Riesel v. State, 1D09-3177.

Citation48 So.3d 885
Decision Date30 November 2010
Docket NumberNo. 1D09-3177.,1D09-3177.
PartiesRandy RIESEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Randy Riesel appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence to life in prison. He was convicted as charged, after the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter by act as follows: "To prove the crime of manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Number one, Charles David May, Jr., is dead. Number two, Randy Scott Riesel intentionally caused the death of Charles David May, Jr." Later on the instruction also stated: "In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit and (sic) act which caused death." 1 The jury was not instructed on manslaughter by culpable negligence. Cf. Joyner v. State, 41 So.3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Salonko v. State, 42 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

The manslaughter instruction in the present case is not materially different from the instruction held to be fundamental error in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), because it, too, erroneously stated that intent to kill was an element of manslaughter. Montgomery, 39 So.3d at 256, 259 (manslaughter by act instruction which provided that the state must prove the defendant "intentionally caused the death of" the victim resulted in fundamental error because the "instruction erroneously imposed upon the jury a requirement to find that Montgomery intended to kill" the victim).2See also Hardee v. State, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 3047359, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1946 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 25, 2009); Ward v. State, 12 So.3d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Stinson v. State, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2009 WL 633133, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D570, D571 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 13, 2009). See generally Reddick v. State, 394 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.1981) ("The failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense (one step removed) constitutes error that is per se reversible.").We reverse the conviction for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial.3

Reversed and remanded.

BENTON, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

1 The last phrase represented an addition to the standard jury instruction on manslaughter in December of 2008. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2007-10, 997 So.2d 403, 404-05 (Fla.2008). Mr. Riesel's trial was conducted in April of 2009.

2 The supreme court's interim (December 11, 2008 through April 8, 2010 or June 28, 2010) manslaughter instruction failed to eliminate the requirement that the jury find intent, the defect identified in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010). But see Morgan v. State, 42 So.3d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In 2010, the supreme court further modified the standard instruction for manslaughter, in order to remedy the problem...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Black v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2012
    ...DCA 2011), review granted,79 So.3d 744 (Fla.2012), and Pharisien v. State, 74 So.3d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). But see Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the instruction at issue was erroneous under the same reasoning as employed in Montgomery ),review denied,......
  • Daniels v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2013
    ...that its decision is in express and direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The issue before us concerns whether the standard jury instruction for th......
  • United States v. Mendoza-Padilla
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 16, 2016
    ...50 So.3d 33, 34 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ; Joyner v. State , 41 So.3d 306, 306–07 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ; Riesel v. State , 48 So.3d 885, 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010). These cases hold that “any instruction that includes intent to kill as an element of manslaughter by act is fundam......
  • Molina v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2014
    ...Court's opinion in Daniels had not been issued at the time of Molina's direct appeal, the First District's opinion in Riesel v. State, 48 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), which the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in Daniels, was available to Molina's appellate counsel at the time of the appeal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Crimes
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • April 30, 2021
    ...resulting in reversal when the jury is instructed on manslaughter by act as a one step lesser of second-degree murder. Riesel v. State, 48 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (See Salonko v. State , 42 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) for discussion of an erroneous manslaughter by act instruction ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT