Opinion ID: 2545886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Standard Jury Instruction Require Proof of Intent to Kill?

Text: Next, we address whether the language in the standard jury instruction required proof of Montgomery's intent to kill Ellis. At the time of Montgomery's trial in 2007, the standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act provided in relevant part: To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Victim) is dead. 2. a. (Defendant) intentionally caused the death of (victim). . . . . However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms. In 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. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 7.7 (2006) (emphasis added). [2] Both parties and the district court agree that this jury instruction required the jury to find that the defendant intended to kill the victim in order to convict Montgomery of manslaughter. The focus of our analysis is on the second element of the jury instruction, which provided that the State must prove that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. 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. We agree with the district court's observation in Montgomery that a reasonable jury would believe that in order to convict Montgomery of manslaughter by act, it had to find that he intended to kill Ellis. The district court stated: The average juror would likely interpret the instruction as requiring an intent to kill, as there is no direct language regarding an intentional act. The word intentionally in the instruction modifies the word caused. Thus, the instruction would be naturally understood as requiring a finding that the defendant intended for the victim to die. The likelihood of such an interpretation is illustrated by the fact that the phrase intentionally caused the death of is commonly associated with first-degree murder in charging documents. Montgomery, 34 Fla. L. Weekly at D361, ___ So.3d at ___. Additionally, we agree with the district court's assessment that [t]he subsequent instruction that manslaughter does not require a premeditated design does not cure its defect, as both the court system and the average reasonable person recognize a distinction between a premeditated design and an instantaneous formation of intent. Id. at D362, at ___. Since Montgomery's trial, this Court has approved an amendment to the standard jury instruction on manslaughter by act. The amendment, approved by this Court in December of 2008, added additional language to clarify that the requisite intent for manslaughter by act is the intent to commit an act that caused the death of the victim: In 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, only an intent to commit an act which caused death. See Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal CasesReport No. 2007-10, 997 So.2d 403, 403 (Fla.2008). Thus, the relevant intent is the intent to commit an act which caused death, and the State is not required to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. [3]