Case Name: Willie James BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-05-17
Citations: 294 So. 2d 347
Docket Number: No. 73-192
Parties: Willie James BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WALDEN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 347–351

Head Matter:
Willie James BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 73-192.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 17, 1974.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Norman J. Kapner and Rendell F. Brown, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and'Nelson E. Bailey and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
CROSS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant, Willie James Brown, appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence for murder in the second degree. We reverse.
The appellant-defendant, Willie James Brown, was charged by information with murder in the first degree. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury on all of the degrees of unlawful homicide and also on justifiable and excusable homicide. Shortly after the jury had begun its deliberation, the foreman of the jury made the following request:
"Explain in layman's words in Murder Two, quote, depraved mind, end of quote, does this mean temporary insanity? Does Murder Two differ from Murder One that it is an instantaneous action rather than premeditated ?"
Pursuant to the request, the jury was reinstructed on first and second degree murder. The defendant's request that the court also reinstruct the jury on justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, third degree murder, an<j manslaughter was denied. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. Judgment was entered accordingly by the trial court. It is from this judgment that the defendant appeals.
The question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying the defendant's request to include instructions on justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, third degree murder and manslaughter when the court repeated, at the jury's request, instructions on murder in the first and second degree.
The circumstances of the instant case are analogous to those in the recent case of Stills v. State, 272 So.2d 174 (Fla.App.1973). In Stills the court properly instructed the jury at the end of the trial on all degrees of unlawful homicide, and also on justifiable and excusable homicide. After some deliberation, one of the jurors requested the court to reread the instructions on first and second degree murder. Defense counsel then requested that the court also reinstruct the jury on justifiable homicide and self defense. This request was refused. The trial court reread only the first and second degree murder instructions to the jury. On appeal, the appellate court in Stills concluded that the trial court should have included the instructions requested by the defendant concerning justifiable homicide and self defense when it reinstructed the jury. Failure of the trial court to so instruct left the jury with an incomplete and potentially misleading instruction and constituted reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
POULTON, TIMOTHY P., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.