Case Name: Sidney PRIDGEON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-06-02
Citations: 425 So. 2d 8
Docket Number: No. VV-451
Parties: Sidney PRIDGEON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 425
Pages: 8–9

Head Matter:
Sidney PRIDGEON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. VV-451.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 2, 1982.
Martin S. Page, of Darby, Peele, Page & Bowdoin, Lake City, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pridgeon seeks review of his conviction for second degree murder raising three points on appeal, two of which warrant our discussion. First, appellant asserts the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law of provocation. Second, appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to rein-struct the jury on the defense instructions after reinstructing the jury on the elements of criminal homicide. We agree with both contentions and reverse and remand for a new trial.
At approximately 2:30 A.M. on August 21,1979, Pope and his daughter-in-law, Barbara, were awakened by barking dogs. After Pope decided to investigate, he and Barbara heard two shots fired from behind Pope's trailer. Pope had been asked to watch the land located immediately behind his home because some logging equipment parked there had previously been vandalized. After entering Pope's truck, the Popes saw appellant's vehicle on a logging road moving toward a paved road. The Popes pursued the vehicle and parked their truck between appellant's vehicle and the paved road. Shortly before the vehicle began to pass, Pope got out of his truck with a flashlight and shotgun. As the vehicle passed, Pope shined the flashlight in appellant's face and told him to stop. When the vehicle did not halt, Pope fired a shot striking the rear of the vehicle which then rolled to a stop. Subsequently, appellant got out of his stopped vehicle and fired a rifle shot mortally wounding Pope. On August 30, 1979, appellant was indicted for first degree murder. The cause then proceeded to trial. Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court delivered the jury instructions. Over defense objection, the court included an instruction on the law of provocation. After retiring for deliberation, the jury requested additional instructions on the degrees of homicide. When asked whether either party wanted additional instructions, appellant's counsel said, "Always want the defense instructions given as well." The court, however, failed to grant the request. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict convicting appellant of second degree murder.
The trial court must instruct the jury on all facts claimed to be proved provided the instructions aré supported by competent evidence. Polk v. State, 179 So.2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). An instruction on the law of provocation is appropriate only where there is evidence the killing resulted from a sudden passion sufficient to render the killer unconscious of his act. Horn v. State, 116 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Olds v. State, 44 Fla. 452, 33 So. 296 (1902). In this case, we find no evidence which could support the trial court's instruction concerning provocation.
Further, where a jury is reinstructed on the degrees of homicide, the defendant is entitled to have the court fully instruct the jury on the applicable defenses. Hedges v. State, 172 So.2d 824 (Fla.1965); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978). The trial court's failure to do so renders the verdict fatal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are reversed and the trial court is instructed to grant appellant a new trial.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., dissents with opinion.