Stallings v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-229,93-229 |
| Citation | 634 So.2d 784 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D720 Robert Lewis STALLINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Robert Lewis Stallings appeals his conviction of attempted second degree murder. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to include a definition of excusable homicide in instructions given to the jury. We agree, vacate the adjudication of guilt and remand for a new trial.
Stallings shot the victim, Allen Gainous, in the mouth during an altercation over the amount of cocaine Gainous was attempting to buy from Stallings. Both individuals claim that the other picked up a brick to use as a weapon on the other. Stallings also claims that he fired one or two shots into the air and told Gainous to leave when Gainous threatened to hit Stallings' cousin with the brick. Instead of leaving, Gainous allegedly rushed at Stallings who then fired at and injured Gainous.
Stallings' defense counsel specially requested that the jury receive several of the instructions found in Rule 3.04(d), Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, pertaining to the justifiable use of deadly force because self-defense was the main issue of the case. The trial court granted the request but failed to give the mandatory standard instruction contained in the introduction to homicide. The introduction provides definitions for both justifiable and excusable homicide and is to be read in all murder and manslaughter cases. State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla.1990). Stallings made no objection, but asserts on appeal that no objection was necessary and that, absent a waiver by the defense, it was necessary that the instruction be given.
The state contends that Stallings waived his right to rely on excusable homicide, by specifically requesting justifiable use of deadly force instructions and relying on these instructions in his argument to the jury. The state argues the instant case is controlled by Armstrong v. State, 566 So.2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), decision approved, 579 So.2d 734 (Fla.1992), in which defense counsel specifically requested that the court omit from the definition of excusable homicide any reference to a killing in the heat of passion, upon sudden provocation, or upon sudden combat. The supreme court in Armstrong, in finding defense counsel had waived any defect in the instruction given, answered affirmatively the following certified question:
DOES TRIAL COUNSEL FOR A DEFENDANT WAIVE FOR HIS CLIENT FUTURE OBJECTION TO FAILURE TO GIVE THE FULL AND COMPLETE INITIAL INSTRUCTION ON JUSTIFIABLE AND EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE AS PART OF THE MANSLAUGHTER INSTRUCTION WHEN THE TRIAL ATTORNEY SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS AN ABBREVIATED INSTRUCTION, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?
Contrary to the state's assertion, the instant case is not controlled by Armstrong. In Armstrong, defense counsel requested and received an abbreviated version of the standard instruction on excusable homicide contained in the "Introduction to Homicide" of the Standard Jury Instructions. In the instant case there was no request to either limit or eliminate the initial instruction on homicide, and yet, no part of this initial instruction which is required to be read in all homicide cases was read. Defense counsel did submit a manslaughter charge which failed to mention justifiable or excusable homicide. This charge, however, was modified to include the statement that "... the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide." The jury was then given defense counsel's requested instructions on justifiable use of deadly force but was never given either the standard initial homicide instruction or some other definition of excusable homicide.
The fact that appellant did not appear to particularly rely on excusable homicide as opposed to justifiable homicide appears to be inconsequential. In Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal Cases No. 92-1, 603 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1992), the supreme court rejected a committee recommendation that "no portion of the excusable homicide instruction need be read when it has no basis in the evidence." Id. at 1176. Concluding to the contrary, the court noted:
Since Rojas, several district court cases have followed the rule established in Rojas 1 that a failure to instruct on both excusable and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 93-1960
...116 L.Ed.2d 206 (1991); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978); Stallings v. State, 634 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Pierre v. State, 597 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Henry v. State, 586 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Jones v. State, 582 ......
-
Perez v. State
...also have to be included. Standard Jury Instructions--Criminal Cases No. 92-1, 603 So.2d 1175, 1176 (Fla.1992); Stallings v. State, 634 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because the failure to instruct on excusable homicide was fundamental error, the absence of an objection at trial does ......
-
McNeal v. State
...by the court, failure to give the correct instruction is fundamental error. Rojas v. State, 552 So.2d 914 (Fla.1989); Stallings v. State, 634 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Blandon v. State, 657 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA We vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial. JUDGMENT VACATED; RE......
-
Blandon v. State, 94-1080
...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. T......