Page v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Page v. State

164 So. 3d 96, 2015 WL 2091636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2015

DocketNo. 3D10-534

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 3d 96 (Page v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Page v. State, 164 So. 3d 96, 2015 WL 2091636 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s order dated February 19, 2014 in the matter of Page v. State, SC12-314, quashing this Court’s February 8, 2012 [97]*97opinion and remanding for reconsideration, we withdraw our opinion in 3D10-534 and substitute the following in its. place:

Tedrick Page appeals from a conviction of second degree murder as charged. The only point presented arises from the fact that the jury was instructed in accordance with the interim manslaughter by act instruction. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, (2007-10), 997 So.2d 403 (Fla.2008). The issue before us is whether that instruction erroneously stated the required elements of the crime, and whether that instruction is fundamental error. We hold that, in accordance with Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla. 2013), and Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla.2015), the error is fundamental and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s order dated February 19, 2014 in the matter of Page v. State, SC12-314, quashing this Court’s February 8, 2012 [97]*97opinion and remanding for reconsideration, we withdraw our opinion in 3D10-534 and substitute the following in its. place:

Tedrick Page appeals from a conviction of second degree murder as charged. The only point presented arises from the fact that the jury was instructed in accordance with the interim manslaughter by act instruction. See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, (2007-10), 997 So.2d 403 (Fla.2008). The issue before us is whether that instruction erroneously stated the required elements of the crime, and whether that instruction is fundamental error. We hold that, in accordance with Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409 (Fla. 2013), and Griffin v. State, 160 So.3d 63 (Fla.2015), the error is fundamental and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 96, 2015 WL 2091636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack