Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida held that omitting the statutory element requiring an intentional act not essential to the underlying felony from an attempted felony murder jury instruction was not fundamental error where the defendant raised only mistaken identity and the omitted element was undisputed. The court approved the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Battle and disapproved the Fourth District’s conflicting decision in Thompson to the extent of the conflict. A dissent would have addressed and vacated Battle’s attempted second-degree murder conviction on double-jeopardy grounds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether failure to instruct the jury on the statutory element that the defendant committed an intentional act not essential to the underlying felony constituted fundamental error when the defendant did not object and relied solely on mistaken identity.
- Whether the Second District Court of Appeal's decision should be approved and the conflicting Fourth District decision in Thompson v. State disapproved to the extent of conflict.
Holdings
- Although the trial court's omission of the statutory element requiring an intentional act that was not an essential element of the underlying felony was instructional error, the omission was not fundamental error because the omitted element was not disputed and Battle's sole defense was mistaken identity.
Key quotations
“Fundamental error only occurs when “the omission is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to convict.”” (911 So. 2d at 89)
“Therefore, we approve the decision of the Second District and disapprove the Fourth District's decision in Thompson to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.” (911 So. 2d at 90)
Factual background
During an attempted drug purchase in St. Petersburg, Battle approached David Golly's pickup truck, later pointed a gun at Golly, demanded money, and fired when Golly drove away, striking Golly in the head. Golly and two other witnesses identified Battle from a photographic array. Battle conceded that the shooting and attempted robbery occurred but argued that the witnesses mistakenly identified him and that another person was the perpetrator.
Procedural history
Battle was charged with attempted second-degree murder, attempted robbery, and, after amendment of the information, attempted felony murder with a firearm. The trial court omitted from the attempted felony-murder instruction the statutory element requiring an intentional act that was not an essential element of the underlying felony; Battle did not object. The Second District affirmed, finding no fundamental error because Battle's only defense was mistaken identity and the omitted element was undisputed, and certified conflict with Thompson v. State. The Supreme Court of Florida accepted conflict jurisdiction, approved the Second District's decision, and disapproved Thompson to the extent of conflict.