ARIZONA WILLIS, III APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Arizona Willis III was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. He appealed arguing the jury instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter was fundamentally erroneous because it required proof of intent to kill, which courts have now held is not required for manslaughter.
The instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter by act requiring proof of intent to kill constitutes fundamental error because attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, like manslaughter by act, does not require that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
[1] A jury instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter by act that requires proof of an intent to kill constitutes fundamental error.
[2] A jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter by act that requires proof of an intent to kill constitutes fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the crime of manslaughter by act does not require that the defendant intended to kill the victim”
Establishes the legal principle from Montgomery that intent to kill is not an element of manslaughter by act
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis stabbed cab driver Fredo Hilaire multiple times in the neck and back while demanding money. The cab crashed and two witnesses observed Willis c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Instruction Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Arizona Willis, III, Appellant, was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon.1 His sole argument on appeal is that the jury instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter constituted fundamental error, entitling him to a new trial on the charge of attempted second-degree murder. We agree and reverse.
At trial, the evidence showed that Fredo Hilaire, a cab driver, picked up a fare, later identified as Willis, from the Sands Hotel. As Hilaire drove, Willis stabbed him in the neck and back. The cab crashed into a parked car and Hilaire, covered in blood, exited the cab. Hearing the crash, two witnesses exited their home and observed Willis as he continued to stab Hilaire and demand money. Witnesses from the hotel identified Willis as the individual who ordered the cab. The two witnesses from the home, and the victim, all identified Willis as the perpetrator. Blood on one of Willis’ shoes matched that of the victim. Willis’ defense was mistaken identity.
The trial court’s instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter stated that “Arizona Willis, III committed an act which was intended to cause the death of Fredo Hilaire.” Willis did not object to this instruction.
In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), the supreme court held that under Florida law “the crime of manslaughter by act does not require that the defendant intended to kill the victim,” and any such instruction which required proof of an intent to kill constituted fundamental error. Id. at 255, 258.
Willis argues that Montgomery applies equally to attempted voluntary manslaughter by act. The State disagrees and posits, citing Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), that this distinction is supported by the fact that “the Supreme Court has not amended the attempted manslaughter instruction, even though it has twice amended the manslaughter instruction within the last [three] years.”
This court has recently weighed in on the issue in Burton v. State, — So.3d -, 2011 WL 1326258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), certifying conflict with Williams. In Burton, we agreed with the First District, which concluded that an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter by act, requiring the jury to find an intent to kill, suffers from the same infirmities found in Montgomery. Burton, — So.3d at-. See also Bass v. State, 45 So.3d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Gonzalez v. State, 40 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Therefore, we reverse the conviction for attempted second-degree murder, and affirm the conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and JACOBUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vandarius Roundtree v. State, 77 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…se Appellant’s conviction for attempted second-degree murder because the jury charge on the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter was fundamentally erroneous. Cannon v. State, 77 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Willis v. State, 70 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Burton v. State, — So. 3d -, 2011 WL 1326258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We once again express conflict with our sister court in Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review granted, 64 So. 3d 1262 (Fla.2011). The conv…
-
Shade v. State, 83 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…rder based upon the fundamentally erroneous jury instruction on the lesser-included attempted voluntary manslaughter offense. Roundtree v. State, 77 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Cannon v. State, 77 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Willis v. State, 70 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Burton v. State, — So. 3d -, 2011 WL 1326258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). As done previously, we express conflict with Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review granted, 64 So. 3d 1262 (Fla.2011). REVERSED and REMAND…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010)
- Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Bass v. State, 45 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Barbour v. State, 40 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Estaban E. Gonzalez v. State, 40 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)