EVERETT ANDY CLARK, A/K/A JACK CLARK, A/K/A VICTOR SHUTTLEWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Clark was convicted of second degree murder, but the trial judge committed reversible error by failing to fully reread jury instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide and self-defense when the jury requested reinstructions on manslaughter. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The trial judge's failure to reinstruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide and self-defense when reinstructing on manslaughter constitutes reversible error. The court rejected the state's harmless error argument and its distinction based on the conviction being for second degree murder rather than manslaughter, holding that these defenses are equally relevant to second degree murder convictions.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error when, upon reinstructing the jury on manslaughter at the jury's request, it fails to reread all charges including those pertaining…
[2] The mandatory language of a rule requiring instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide as part of the definition of manslaughter must be applied in a neutral and m…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial judge's failure to reinstruct the jury on these matters when he reinstructed the jury on manslaughter, thus rendering an incomplete definition of the crime, may have prejudicially affected the jury's ultimate verdict”
Establishes that incomplete jury reinstructions constitute reversible error when relevant defenses have been raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark was convicted by jury of second degree murder. During jury deliberations, the jury requested reinstructions on manslaughter. The trial judge rei…
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 Mandatory Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The defendant in the trial court appeals his conviction by a jury of second degree murder
Five points on appeal have been urged by the defendant as a basis for reversal. Because of our agreement with appellant’s first point, we deem it unnecessary to consider his other four. Appellant argues that the trial judge committed reversible error when he rein-structed the jury, at the jury’s request, on manslaughter, but failed to reread all the charges including those pertaining to justifiable and excusable homicide and self-defense. Appellant relies on Hedges v. State, Fla.1965, 172 So. 2d 824 and Ford v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 390. See also, Stills v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 174.
The state distinguishes this case from the holdings in Hedges and Ford on the basis that in each of those cases the defendant was actually convicted of manslaughter, but in this case the jury returned a second degree murder verdict, the crime for which the defendant was indicted.
Second, the state points out that appellant did not specifically request the court to reinstruct the jury on self-defense or justifiable and excusable homicide, but entered a general objection to reinstructing only on manslaughter and requested the court to either reread all the instructions or to provide the jury with a copy of the instructions pursuant to CrPR 3.400(c).
The state also contends that any error in this case should be treated as harmless error under Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A. because the evidence did not justify an instruction on justifiable or excusable homicide or self-defense.
We reject the latter contention for two reasons. First, the clear language of CrPR 3.510 makes an instruction of justifiable and excusable homicide, as part of the definition of manslaughter, a mandatory requirement. See, Rayner v. State, Fla. 1973, 273 So. 2d 759; Hedges v. State, supra.
Second, the record reveals in this case that the defendant did attempt to establish a case of either self-defense or justifiable or excusable homicide. In our view, the trial judge’s failure to reinstruct the jury on these matters when he reinstructed the jury on manslaughter, thus rendering an incomplete definition of the crime, may have prejudicially affected the jury’s ultimate verdict.
Therefore, we decline to distinguish this case simply because the jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. Self-defense and justifiable and excusable homicide may be equally as relevant to a determination of guilt for second degree murder as it would be to manslaughter. We think this case again points out the need for criminal trial judges to apply the mandatory language of Rule 3.510 in a neutral and mechanical manner. See, Henry v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So. 2d 78.
For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment and sentence are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1973)
- Henry v. State, 277 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- GAY v. State, 272 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Stills v. State, 272 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Demattia v. State, 292 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)