Amos Augustus Williams v. State of Florida ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Florida
    ____________
    No. SC10-1458
    ____________
    AMOS AUGUSTUS WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Respondent.
    [February 14, 2013]
    CORRECTED OPINION
    LABARGA, J.
    This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fourth District
    Court of Appeal in Williams v. State, 
    40 So. 3d 72
    (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In its
    decision, the district court certified the following questions to be of great public
    importance:
    (1) DOES THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON
    ATTEMPTED MANSLAUGHTER CONSTITUTE
    FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?
    (2) IS ATTEMPTED MANSLAUGHTER A VIABLE OFFENSE IN
    LIGHT OF STATE V. MONTGOMERY, 
    39 So. 3d 252
    [(Fla.
    2010)]?
    See 
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 76
    .1 The Fourth District also certified express and
    direct conflict with Lamb v. State, 
    18 So. 3d 734
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). As
    explained below, we answer both certified questions in the affirmative. We held in
    State v. Montgomery, 
    39 So. 3d 252
    (Fla. 2010), that giving the standard jury
    instruction for the completed crime of manslaughter by act—which required the
    jury to find that the defendant intended to kill the victim—is fundamental error
    when the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed
    from manslaughter because the manslaughter statute does not require an intent to
    kill. 
    Id. at 259.
    We now hold that giving the standard jury instruction on
    attempted manslaughter by act—which also requires the jury to find the defendant
    committed an act intended to cause death—similarly constitutes fundamental error
    where the defendant is convicted of an offense not more than one step removed
    from attempted manslaughter. The crime of attempted manslaughter by act does
    not require the State to prove, or the jury to find, that the defendant intended to kill
    the victim.
    1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), (4), Fla. Const. Although the
    Fourth District certified the second question, the district court did not pass on that
    question. Article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution provides this Court
    with discretionary jurisdiction to review, in pertinent part, decisions in which the
    district court “passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public
    importance.” Our discretionary review jurisdiction is therefore based on the first
    certified question and the certified conflict. As we explain below, because we have
    jurisdiction based on the first certified question and the certified conflict, we
    answer both certified questions.
    -2-
    Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Fourth District in Williams and
    approve the decision in Lamb, in which the First District held that the trial court
    committed fundamental error by giving the standard jury instruction on attempted
    manslaughter by act because it added the element that the defendant “committed an
    act intended to cause the death” of the victim. 
    Lamb, 18 So. 3d at 735
    . We also
    hold that the offense of attempted manslaughter remains a viable offense. We turn
    first to the facts of this case.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Amos Augustus Williams was charged with the attempted first-degree
    murder of his ex-girlfriend Samantha Lindsay in 2006. The facts are set forth in
    the opinion of the district court as follows:
    The defendant’s charges arise out of a brutal stabbing of his ex-
    girlfriend in her home while their ten-month-old daughter was present.
    The victim sustained multiple stab wounds to her face, stomach, chest,
    leg, and side. When the victim tried to flee from the defendant, he
    grabbed her by the neck of her clothes and continued to stab her. The
    defendant pulled the victim back into the house, locked the door, and
    stabbed her whenever she tried to move toward the door.
    The police apprehended the defendant later that night. The
    defendant told police that the victim tried to start a fight with him and
    wanted to cut him, he wrestled with the victim, and the victim fell on
    the knife. Later, he told the police that he did not know what
    happened because “the evil spirit just move upon me, evil.”
    
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 73
    . The defendant requested jury instructions on lesser
    included offenses, including attempted manslaughter by act. The jury instruction
    for attempted manslaughter by act, which is at issue in this case, was given
    -3-
    consistent with the standard instruction as it existed in 2006 when the crime was
    committed and as it currently exists, in pertinent part, as follows:
    To prove the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter, the State
    must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: That Mr.
    Williams committed an act which was intended to cause the death of
    Ms. Lindsay and would have resulted in the death of Ms. Lindsay
    except that someone prevented [ ] Mr. Williams from killing Ms.
    Lindsay or he failed to do so . . . .
    
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 73
    (emphasis added). The instruction also advised the jury:
    In order to convict [defendant] of attempted voluntary manslaughter,
    it is not necessary for the State to prove that the Defendant had a
    premeditated intent to cause death.
    
    Id. (emphasis omitted).
    No defense objection was made to the instruction and
    Williams was ultimately convicted of attempted second-degree murder, as well as
    burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery while armed and false
    imprisonment with a weapon. 
    Id. On appeal
    to the Fourth District, Williams contended that giving the
    instruction constituted fundamental error similar to that found by this Court in
    Montgomery as to the standard instruction for the completed offense of
    manslaughter by act. Because the legal effect of this Court’s decision in
    Montgomery is critical to determination of the certified questions and resolution of
    the certified conflict in this case, that decision will be discussed first.
    In Montgomery, we recognized that the then-existing standard jury
    instruction for the offense of manslaughter by act required the jury to find that the
    -4-
    defendant “intentionally caused the death” of the victim. 
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 257
    ; see Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 7.7 (2006). We also recognized that section
    782.07, Florida Statutes, did not require the jury to make such a finding. Section
    782.07 provided in pertinent part as follows:
    782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an
    elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a
    child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an
    emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
    (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or
    culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according
    to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing
    shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the
    provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second
    degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
    775.084.
    § 782.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). The statute remains in this same form today. In
    discussing the requirements of the manslaughter statute, we stated in Montgomery:
    We observe that the statute does not impose a requirement that the
    defendant intend to kill the victim. Instead, it plainly provides that
    where one commits an act that results in death, and such an act is not
    lawfully justified or excusable, it is manslaughter.
    
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 256
    . This Court concluded that giving this erroneous
    jury instruction constituted fundamental error because Montgomery was convicted
    of second-degree murder, one step removed from manslaughter, and because he
    was entitled to a correct instruction on manslaughter. We further explained in
    Montgomery that “[a]lthough in some cases of manslaughter by act it may be
    inferred from the facts that the defendant intended to kill the victim, to impose
    -5-
    such a requirement on a finding of manslaughter by act would blur the distinction
    between first-degree murder and manslaughter.” 
    Id. at 256.
    “Moreover, it would
    impose a more stringent finding of intent upon manslaughter than upon second-
    degree murder, which, like manslaughter, does not require proof that the defendant
    intended to kill the victim.” 
    Id. We also
    recognized in Montgomery that the jury in that case was instructed,
    similar to the instruction in the instant case, that “[i]n order to convict of
    manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the
    defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death.” 
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 256
    (quoting Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 7.7 (2006)). Even so, we concluded that
    this additional phrase did not alleviate the fundamental error. We explained:
    Although the instruction also provided that “it is not necessary for the
    State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause
    death,” we conclude that this language was insufficient to erode the
    import of the second element: that the jury must find that the
    defendant intended to cause the death of the victim.
    
    Id. at 257.
    After issuance of our opinion in Montgomery, we issued an interim
    corrected manslaughter by act instruction 2 and in 2011 we issued the following
    final amended instruction for manslaughter by act:
    To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove
    the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    2. See In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—
    Instruction 7.7, 
    41 So. 3d 853
    , 854-55 (Fla. 2010).
    -6-
    1. (Victim) is dead.
    Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
    2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
    caused the death of (victim).
    b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
    the death of (victim).
    c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable
    negligence of (defendant).
    ....
    Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
    In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not
    necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent
    to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not
    merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
    In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction
    7.7, 
    75 So. 3d 210
    , 211-12 (Fla. 2011) (strikethroughs and underlining omitted). 3
    ANALYSIS
    We turn now to the question of whether the standard jury instruction for the
    offense of attempted manslaughter by act gives rise to fundamental error, just as
    we concluded the standard instruction for the completed crime of manslaughter did
    in Montgomery. We hold, consistent with our holding in Montgomery, that a trial
    court commits fundamental error in giving the standard jury instruction on
    3. As to proposed amendment of Standard Jury Instruction 6.6, Attempted
    Voluntary Manslaughter, the issue was presented in In re: Standard Jury
    Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2010-05, SC10-2434. On May 24, 2011,
    Instruction 6.6 was severed from that case to be considered in In re: Standard Jury
    Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 6.6 and Instructions 25.9-25.12,
    SC11-1010. Thereafter, on March 19, 2012, instruction 6.6 was severed from that
    case and placed for consideration in In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal
    Cases—Instruction 6.6 and Instructions 25.9-25.13, SC12-462.
    -7-
    attempted manslaughter by act where the defendant is convicted of a crime no
    more than one step removed from the improperly instructed offense. As we made
    clear in Montgomery, the manslaughter statute does not impose a requirement that
    the defendant intend to kill the victim. Similarly, in order to convict a defendant
    for an attempted manslaughter, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to
    kill the victim but for some reason failed to do so. We have held that if the State is
    not required to show specific intent to successfully prosecute a completed crime, it
    will not be required to show specific intent to successfully prosecute an attempt to
    commit that crime. See Gentry v. State, 
    437 So. 2d 1097
    , 1099 (Fla. 1983). The
    crime of attempted manslaughter exists “in situations where, if death had resulted,
    the defendant could have been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter
    [manslaughter by act].” See Murray v. State, 
    491 So. 2d 1120
    , 1122 (Fla. 1986)
    (quoting Taylor v. State, 
    444 So. 2d 931
    , 934 (Fla. 1983)). Because we have now
    clarified that the crime of manslaughter by act does not require an intent to kill, we
    are constrained to similarly hold that the crime of attempted manslaughter by act
    does not require an intent to kill.
    The Fourth District attempted to uphold the standard jury instruction on
    attempted manslaughter by act by stating that “[t]he error that occurs by instructing
    the jury that ‘an intent to kill’ is an element of manslaughter does not exist when
    instructing the jury that the defendant committed an act which was intended to
    -8-
    cause the death of the victim.” 
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 75
    . This is a distinction
    without a difference. The attempted manslaughter by act instruction clearly
    required an intent to cause the death of the victim, which we have held to be error
    under the manslaughter statute. The district court also justified its decision in this
    case by noting that this Court did not amend the attempted manslaughter jury
    instruction when it amended the manslaughter instruction in 2011 after the
    Montgomery decision was issued. See 
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 75
    . However, this
    fact has no bearing on whether the instruction is erroneous. 4
    Lastly, the district court in Williams concluded:
    [A]s worded, the instruction did not confuse this jury. The jury found
    the defendant guilty of attempted second degree murder, which
    necessarily means the jury found the defendant “intentionally
    committed an act” that would have resulted in the death of the victim
    and that the act was imminently dangerous to another and
    demonstrated a depraved mind, without regard for human life.
    
    Williams, 40 So. 3d at 75
    . However, because the jury found Williams guilty of
    attempted second-degree murder, an offense not requiring proof of intent to cause
    4. We have made clear that in authorizing the publication and use of a
    standard jury instruction, “we express no opinion on its correctness and remind all
    interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or
    alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction.” In
    re Standard Jury Instructions—Instruction 
    7.7, 75 So. 3d at 211
    . Moreover, the
    Court’s apparent inaction at that time was not an indication of this Court’s tacit
    approval of the existing instruction. See supra note 3. Even if this Court’s inaction
    had been intended to indicate approval of the existing attempted manslaughter
    instruction, such would not necessarily cure any fundamental error that might exist
    in that instruction.
    -9-
    the death of the victim, it must have determined that Williams did not intend to
    cause the victim’s death. And, because the instruction given for attempted
    manslaughter by act erroneously included an intent to kill element, the jury was
    left with attempted second-degree murder as the only viable lesser included offense
    under the instructions given. 5 Thus, a correct attempted manslaughter by act
    instruction was critical to what the jury had to consider in this case to determine if
    Williams was guilty of attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree
    murder, or attempted manslaughter by act.
    This Court explained in Garzon v. State, 
    980 So. 2d 1038
    (Fla. 2008):
    We have consistently held that not all error in jury instructions
    is fundamental error. . . . Further, “ ‘fundamental error occurs only
    when the omission is pertinent or material to what the jury must
    consider in order to convict.’ Failing to instruct on an element of the
    crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not
    fundamental error. . . .”
    
    Id. at 1042
    (quoting State v. Delva, 
    575 So. 2d 643
    , 645 (Fla. 1991) (citation
    omitted) (quoting Stewart v. State, 
    420 So. 2d 862
    , 863 (Fla. 1982)).
    In Reed v. State, 
    837 So. 2d 366
    (Fla. 2002), we made clear that if an
    erroneous instruction is given as to a disputed element of the offense, and the
    instruction is pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to
    5. There is no crime of attempted manslaughter by culpable negligence. See
    Tillman v. State, 
    471 So. 2d 32
    , 33 (Fla. 1985) (citing 
    Taylor, 444 So. 2d at 934
    ).
    Thus, the jury was not instructed on attempted manslaughter by culpable
    negligence.
    - 10 -
    convict, it is fundamental error; and “fundamental error is not subject to harmless
    error review.” 
    Id. at 369-70.
    In finding the instruction to be fundamental error in
    Montgomery, we focused on the fact that the manslaughter by act instruction was
    “pertinent or material to what the jury must consider in order to convict,” and
    emphasized the defendant’s right to have the jury correctly instructed.
    
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 258
    (quoting 
    Delva, 575 So. 2d at 645
    ). We concluded
    in Montgomery “that fundamental error occurred in this case, where Montgomery
    was indicted and tried for first-degree murder and ultimately convicted of second-
    degree murder after the jury was erroneously instructed on the lesser included
    offense of manslaughter.” 
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 258
    . Thus, where the
    erroneous instruction applies to an element of the crime that is in dispute and “is
    pertinent or material to what the jury must consider” to convict, an erroneous jury
    instruction will be found to be fundamental error where the defendant is convicted
    of a crime no more than one step removed from the improperly instructed offense. 6
    This is true regardless of whether there is ample evidence to convict the defendant
    6. We held in Pena v. State, 
    901 So. 2d 781
    , 787 (Fla. 2005), that when the
    trial court fails to properly instruct on a crime two or more degrees removed from
    the crime for which the defendant is convicted, the error is subject to a harmless
    error analysis. However, as we held in Montgomery, when the court fails to
    properly instruct on an offense only one step removed from the crime for which the
    defendant is convicted and the instruction is pertinent or material to what the jury
    must consider to convict and concerns a matter in dispute, 
    Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369
    ,
    the error is fundamental. 
    Montgomery, 39 So. 3d at 259
    .
    - 11 -
    of the higher crime. “[W]hether the evidence of guilt is overwhelming or whether
    the prosecutor has or has not made an inaccurate instruction a feature of the
    prosecution’s argument are not germane to whether the error is fundamental.”
    
    Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369
    . Simply stated, the defendant is entitled to an accurate
    instruction on the charged offenses and all lesser included offenses, and when the
    defendant is convicted of a crime not more than one step removed from the crime
    for which an erroneous instruction is given, fundamental error occurs if the
    instruction pertains to a disputed element of the crime.
    We also note that, with the exception of the Fourth District, all the district
    courts have held that giving the standard jury instruction for attempted
    manslaughter by act constitutes fundamental error. See, e.g., Thompson v. State,
    
    76 So. 3d 1050
    , 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that the standard instruction
    erroneously “adds the additional element that the defendant ‘committed an act
    intended to cause the death’ of the victim when attempted manslaughter by act
    requires only an intentional unlawful act” (quoting 
    Lamb, 18 So. 3d at 735
    ));
    Houston v. State, 
    87 So. 3d 1
    , 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that “the phrase
    ‘committed an act which was intended to cause the death of’ impermissibly creates
    an intent-to-kill element in the crime of attempted manslaughter” that is not
    required by the manslaughter statute); Burrows v. State, 
    62 So. 3d 1258
    , 1260 (Fla.
    3d DCA 2011) (reversing Burrows’ conviction for second-degree murder based on
    - 12 -
    a holding that the attempted manslaughter instruction was fundamental error); and
    Burton v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D738, *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 8, 2011)
    (concluding that the jury instruction given for attempted manslaughter required
    proof of intent to kill and was, thus, fundamental error). What is more, in some
    district court cases the State conceded that the jury instruction for attempted
    manslaughter was erroneous and created fundamental error, 7 contrary to the
    position now taken by the State in this Court. 8
    Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that the attempted manslaughter by
    act jury instruction given in this case constituted fundamental error. In so holding,
    we must quash the Fourth District’s decision below and approve the decision of the
    First District in the certified conflict case of Lamb. The First District in Lamb
    correctly held that the trial court committed fundamental error by giving the
    7. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 
    40 So. 3d 60
    , 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010);
    Coiscou v. State, 
    43 So. 3d 123
    , 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
    8. We also decline the State’s invitation in this case to revisit our
    Montgomery decision. We have reconfirmed the holding in Montgomery in
    subsequent cases, such as Bonilla v. State, 
    75 So. 3d 233
    (Fla. 2011), where we
    explained:
    In State v. Montgomery, 
    39 So. 3d 252
    (Fla. 2010), we held that
    because defendant Montgomery, who was convicted of second-degree
    murder, was entitled to an accurate jury instruction on the necessarily
    lesser included offense of manslaughter by act, the use of the then-
    standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act constituted
    fundamental reversible error in his case because it erroneously
    required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally caused the
    death of the victim.
    
    Bonilla, 75 So. 3d at 233
    .
    - 13 -
    standard jury instruction for attempted manslaughter by act because it added the
    additional element that the defendant “committed an act intended to cause the
    death” of the victim, when attempted manslaughter by act requires only an
    intentional unlawful act. See 
    Lamb, 18 So. 3d at 735
    .
    The Fourth District also certified a question to this Court asking if attempted
    manslaughter remains a viable offense in light of Montgomery. We answer this
    question in the affirmative and hold that attempted manslaughter by act remains a
    viable offense. We held in Taylor v. State, 
    444 So. 2d 931
    (Fla. 1983), that
    attempted manslaughter by act is a cognizable crime in this state. There, tellingly,
    we noted: “We reiterate, however, that a verdict for attempted manslaughter can
    be rendered only if there is proof that the defendant had the requisite intent to
    commit an unlawful act.” 
    Id. at 934.
    We further held in Taylor that there can be
    no crime of attempted manslaughter by culpable negligence. Nothing in our
    decision in Montgomery causes us to conclude that attempted manslaughter is no
    longer a viable offense.
    CONCLUSION
    Based on the foregoing analysis, we quash the decision of the Fourth District
    in Williams and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision. We further
    approve the decision of the First District in Lamb.
    It is so ordered.
    - 14 -
    PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
    CANADY, J., dissents with an opinion, in which POLSTON, C.J., concurs.
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
    IF FILED, DETERMINED.
    CANADY, J., dissenting.
    Although I agree with the majority’s answer regarding the second certified
    question, I disagree with its conclusion concerning the first certified question. For
    the reasons I have expressed in my dissent in Haygood v. State, No. SC11-294
    (Fla. Feb. 14, 2013), I conclude that the jury pardon doctrine should be repudiated.
    Since the majority’s conclusion that Williams is entitled to a new trial rests on the
    jury pardon doctrine, I dissent.
    Here, as in Haygood, there is no evidentiary basis for giving an instruction
    on the one-step-removed lesser included offense. The uncontroverted facts
    regarding Williams’ sustained and savage attack on the victim belie any suggestion
    that he lacked the depraved mind requisite for attempted second-degree murder and
    that a rational jury could have acquitted him of that offense and found him guilty
    of attempted manslaughter by act. I would therefore reject Williams’ claims of
    fundamental error. The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirming
    Williams’ convictions and sentences should not be disturbed.
    POLSTON, C.J., concurs.
    - 15 -
    Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified
    Direct Conflict of Decisions
    Fourth District - Case No. 4D09-2159
    (St. Lucie County)
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida and Dea
    Abramschmitt and John Michael Conway and Margaret Price Natale, Assistant
    Public Defenders, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,West Palm Beach, Florida,
    for Petitioner
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Consiglia Terenzio,
    Bureau Chief and Diane Fischer Medley and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant
    Attorney Generals, West Palm Beach, Florida,
    for Respondent
    - 16 -