Cited for
At page 1186 PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution to review Moore v. State, 114 So.3d 486 (Fla. 1st…1 citing case
- Arnold Jerome Knight v. State of Florida, 267 So. 3d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).published We also re-certify as a question of great public importance a question we certified in Moore v. State, 114 So. 3d 486, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), review dismissed, 181 So. 3d 1186, 1186-87 (Fla. 2016). *** Appellant challenges his conviction…
At page 1187 JUSTIFIABLE OR EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE? Id. at 493-94. After further consideration and hearing oral argument in this case, we have determined that we should…1 citing case
- State of Florida v. Damani Spencer, 216 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 2017).published See State v. Moore, 181 So.3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 2016). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Jimmy MOORE, Jr., Respondent
v.
Jimmy MOORE, Jr., Respondent
SC13-1236.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 14, 2016.
Published opinion
181 So. 3d 1186
2016 Fla. LEXIS 65
2016 WL 164157
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner., Nancy Ann Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Ann Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.
Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Polston, Perry, Canady.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution to review Moore v. State, 114 So.3d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), a decision in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance:
IN ORDER FOR COUNSEL TO WAIVE AN ERROR IN A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE FUNDAMENTAL, IS IT ONLY NECESSARY THAT COUNSEL AFFIRMATIVELY AGREE TO THE INSTRUCTION, OR IS IT ALSO NECESSARY ' FOR COUNSEL TO AFFIRMATIVELY AGREE TO THE PORTION OF THE INSTRUCTION THAT IS ERROR AND/OR TO BE AWARE THAT THE INSTRUCTION IS ERRONEOUS?
WHEN A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF EITHER MANSLAUGHTER OR A GREATER OFFENSE NOT MORE THAN ONE STEP REMOVED, DOES THE FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON JUSTIFIABLE OR EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS EVEN WHERE THE RECORD REFLECTS THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS TO THIS ISSUE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD FIND[*1187] JUSTIFIABLE OR EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE?
Id. at 493-94. After further consideration and hearing oral argument in this case, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss review.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur. CANADY, J., dissents.