# Williams v. State

> Supreme Court of Florida · February 14, 2013 · 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4805185

## Case

- **Full name:** Amos Augustus WILLIAMS v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** February 14, 2013
- **Citations:** 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 99; 123 So. 3d 23; 2013 Fla. LEXIS 300; 2013 WL 535449
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Canady
- **Judges:** Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4805185

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding it, fundamental error to give standard jury instruction. on attempted manslaughter by act, which requires jury to find that defendant committed act intended to cause death, where defendant is convicted of offense not more than one step removed from attempted manslaughter
- finding it fundamental error to give standard jury instruction on attempted manslaughter by act, which requires jury to find that defendant committed act intended to cause death, where defendant is convicted of offense not more than one step removed from attempted manslaughter
- holding that fundamental error occurs when the trial judge gives an incorrect instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter for a defendant convicted of attempted second-degree murder

## Opinion text

CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority’s answer regarding the second certified question, I disagree with its conclusion concerning the first certified question. For the reasons I have expressed in my dissent in Haygood v. State, 109 So.3d 735 (Fla.2013), I conclude that the jury pardon doctrine should be repudiated. Since the majority’s conclusion that Williams is entitled to a new trial rests on the jury pardon doctrine, I dissent.
Here, as in Haygood , there is no eviden-tiary basis for giving an instruction on the one-step-removed lesser included offense. *31 The uncontroverted facts regarding Williams’ sustained and savage attack on the victim belie any suggestion that he lacked the depraved mind requisite for attempted second-degree murder and that a rational jury could have acquitted him of that offense and found him guilty of attempted manslaughter by act. I would therefore reject Williams’ claims of fundamental error. The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirming Williams’ convictions and sentences should not be disturbed.
POLSTON, C.J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4805185. Public record. Not legal advice.