Court Opinion

ID: 9795528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:30:41.980434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:13.203561
License: Public Domain

Bukaty, J.,
concurring. I would conclude that it is error for a trial court to omit a jury instruction defining the term “premedi*403tation” in the case of a defendant charged with first-degree murder or an attempt or conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
It is the element of premeditation that separates first-degree murder from lesser offenses of homicide and that results in substantially higher penalties than other levels of homicide. I believe the Florida rule referred to by the majority and found in Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973), provides the best opportunity for a fair and just verdict when jurors are asked to determine the guilt of one charged with these crimes.
I seriously question whether there is a commonly understood meaning among jurors as to the definition of “premeditation.” The fact the dictionary states a definition does not of itself establish such a common understanding. Even if the dictionary definition somewhat parallels that of the legal definition found in PIK Crim. 3d 56.04(b) (2003 Supp.), we cannot know if all jurors have the same understanding as that expressed in the dictionary. As stated in Anderson, “[Tjhus, premeditation is the ever-present distinguishing factor; and no doubt should be left in the minds of the jury as to its complete and full legal import. No door should be left open for confusion as to what it means.” In order to eliminate such a possibility in this state, the jury should have the benefit of the PIK instruction on this point in cases involving first-degree murder or attempt or conspiracy to commit that crime.
Since Patton did not request the instruction defining “premeditation,” we review its omission by the clearly erroneous standard. I agree with the majority that in view of the abundance of evidence on the point, there is litde doubt that Patton’s coconspirator, Boyce, had the requisite premeditation to kill the victim here. Patton and Boyce discussed shooting the victim before entering his house. While Patton apparently balked at shooting him, he agreed that they could get the victim in the car and push him out. It appears that even had the definition of premeditation been given, it is unlikely the jury would have rendered a different verdict. Failure of the trial court to instruct on the definition of premeditation under these particular facts does not require reversal.