Ike Brown v. State of Florida

124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960) · Supreme Court of Florida · November 16, 1960 · No. No. 30596

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that a defendant charged with first-degree murder is entitled to jury instructions on all degrees of unlawful homicide, including manslaughter. However, failure to give or improperly limit such an instruction is not reversible fundamental error when the defendant neither requests the instruction nor timely objects. The court discharged the writ and approved the appellate decision denying a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the Court
Thornal, Justice; Thomas, C.J.; Roberts, J.; O'Connell, J.; Drew, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
November 16, 1960
Docket number
No. 30596
Procedural posture
Petition for certiorari seeking review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, on alleged conflict with prior Supreme Court of Florida decisions.
Standard of review
Certiorari review for conflict jurisdiction; the court examined whether the District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with prior Supreme Court of Florida decisions.
Precedential value
Published opinion; majority holding precedential in Florida.
Parties
Ike Brown v. State of Florida
Disposition
other

Topics

jury instructionslesser included offense instructionspreservation of errorcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a first-degree murder defendant is entitled to an instruction on all degrees of unlawful homicide, including manslaughter.
  2. Whether the failure to give such an instruction, or an erroneous instruction excluding a lesser degree, constitutes reversible fundamental error when the defendant neither requests the instruction nor timely objects.
  3. Whether the District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with prior Supreme Court of Florida decisions.

Holdings

  1. In every first-degree murder trial, the accused is entitled to have the jury instructed on all degrees of unlawful homicide, including manslaughter, and instructed that the jury has authority to determine the degree of guilt.
  2. When a defendant fails to request an instruction on a lesser degree of homicide and fails to timely object to an erroneous instruction, the defendant may not raise the instructional error for the first time on appeal.
  3. The District Court of Appeal's decision did not conflict with the prior Supreme Court of Florida decisions relied upon by Brown; the writ of certiorari was therefore discharged.

Key quotations

When the offense charged is first degree murder, whether grounded on specifically alleged premeditated design, or whether committed in the perpetration of certain felonies as proscribed by Section 782.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the defendant is entitled to have the jury advised on all the degrees of unlawful homicide, including manslaughter. (at 483)
To summarize our position, we herewith hold that in any trial for first degree murder the accused is entitled to have the jury instructed on all degrees of unlawful homicide including manslaughter and error is committed if he requests such an instruction and is refused. (at 484)
The writ is therefore discharged. (at 485)

Factual background

Brown was tried on an indictment charging first-degree murder and was convicted of second-degree murder. The trial court instructed the jury on the degrees of unlawful homicide but expressly stated that third-degree murder could not be applicable. Brown neither objected to the instruction nor requested an instruction permitting a third-degree murder verdict.

Procedural history

Brown was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder. The trial judge granted a new trial sua sponte after concluding that the failure to instruct on third-degree murder was fundamental error. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the instruction error was not fundamental absent a defense objection or request. The Supreme Court of Florida accepted certiorari jurisdiction, reviewed the merits, and discharged the writ.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…