Jeremy Haygood v. State of Florida — Canady, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would reject the conclusion that fundamental error required a new trial because the evidence provided no rational basis for manslaughter by act and established second-degree murder. It argues that Florida's jury pardon doctrine improperly requires instructions on unsupported lesser offenses, conflicts with the rule requiring an evidentiary basis for lesser-offense instructions, and encourages irrational verdicts. The dissent would affirm the conviction below rather than order a retrial. Justice Pariente, concurring, would uphold the new-trial result on the ground that the erroneous instruction deprived the jury of an accurate option for resolving disputed intent, not because of the jury pardon doctrine.