Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-01-2020
Case Style:
GLENN JACKSON vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Case Number: 19-3241
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven
Ocksrider
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
West Palm Beach, FL - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant GLENN CALVIN JACKSON with focusing on the issue of whether the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to give a heat of passion instruction in appellant’s trial for attempted second degree murder.
Although there is also an issue as to whether such an instruction was
authorized on the facts, the central issue is whether it can be fundamental
error not to give this special jury instruction. The supreme court has
answered that question in Kaczmar v. State, 104 So. 3d 990, 1005-06 (Fla.
2012), concluding that it is not fundamental error:
2
Kaczmar contends that the trial court fundamentally erred in
not sua sponte providing a special jury instruction on heat of
passion. This claim is without merit. Kaczmar failed to
request a special jury instruction or object when the trial court
read the standard jury instructions, and because no
fundamental error occurred, this issue is not preserved for
review. See Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 2006)
(rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of
passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the
issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also
Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he
failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute
error where the instructions given adequately address the
applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285,
290 (Fla. 1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary
to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not
fundamental error).
Outcome: No Motion For Rehearing Will Be Entertained.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: