F.S. 782.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 782.03 on Casetext

Amendments to 782.03

The 2022 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
Chapter 782
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 782.03 Florida Statutes and Case Law
782.03 Excusable homicide.Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
History.s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2379; GS 3204; RGS 5034; CGL 7136; s. 1, ch. 75-13.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: August 29, 2022
F.S. 782.03 on Google Scholar

F.S. 782.03 on Casetext

Amendments to 782.03

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 782.03
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 782.03.

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S782.03
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 782.03.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Rozzelle v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr.

    672 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 303 times
    Florida Statutes § 782.03 provides:
    PAGE 1005
  2. State v. Smith

    573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1991)   Cited 130 times
    F.S. 782.03
    PAGE 311
  3. Jones v. Morgan

    Case No. 11-CV-936 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 29, 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Under Wisconsin law, the appropriate vehicle for challenging the computation of a sentence is a petition under Wis. Stat. § 782.03 for a writ of habeas corpus. State v. Johnson, 101 Wis. 2d 698, 703 (Ct. App. 1981). Here, while Jones has pursued his administrative remedies, he has not filed a petition under Wis. Stat. § 782.03. In response to the motion to dismiss, Jones submitted a letter from a staff attorney at the Milwaukee County Clerk of Circuit Court to show that he sought judicial remedies. (Docket #14 at 3.) However, the letter does not show that Jones filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 782.03 in state court. In fact, the letter advises Jones to pursue such action, stating "If you believe you are being held illegally because of an erroneous sentence computation, your remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus." Id. Jones failed to do so. Accordingly, he has not exhausted his available state remedies and I will deny his petition without prejudice.
    PAGE 4
  4. Villarreal v. Dep't of Cmty. Corr.

    Case No. 10-C-1023 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Alternately, respondents assert that Villarreal has available a habeas corpus action under Wis. Stat. § 782.03. In denying Villarreal's 2009 motion for sentence modification, Judge Conen suggested that if Villarreal maintained that his detention at that time was illegal his remedy was to file for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 8 at 2 n.1.)
    PAGE 8
  5. Harden v. Jaeger

    21-cv-339-wmc (W.D. Wis. Aug. 9, 2021)
    Nevertheless, the court is dismissing the petition at this time because it appears that Harden has not exhausted his state court remedies, which is a prerequisite to federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Although Harden purports to have exhausted his claim by filing a motion for sentence modification in the state circuit court and then appealing the denial of that motion to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court, it appears that he failed in that motion to fairly present any constitutional challenge to the DOC's computation of his release dates. See State v. Harden, 2019AP445-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2020) (summary disposition) (dkt. #1-2) at 5 (“Harden does not make any coherent argument explaining why the DOC's computation of his parole eligibility, mandatory release, and maximum discharge dates is unconstitutional[.]”). More important, there remains a vehicle available in state court by which Harden can present his constitutional challenge: he can file a petition under Wis.Stat. § 782.03 for a writ of habeas corpus. See Jones v. Morgan, No. 11-CV-936, 2012 WL 663878, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 29, 2012) (“Under Wisconsin law, the appropriate…
    PAGE 1
  6. In re Amendments to Standard Jury Instructions

    75 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 2011)   Cited 14 times

    combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. § 782.03, Fla. Stat. Give only if 2a alleged and proved , and manslaughter is being defined as a lesser included

    paramedic]. Definitions. Give if applicable. “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years. § 782.03, Fla. Stat. “Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it was

  7. Pena v. State

    901 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2005)   Cited 80 times
    Excusable Homicide § 782.03, Fla. Stat. The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
    PAGE 786
  8. Futch v. Dugger

    874 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1989)   Cited 127 times
    Fla.Stat.Ann. § 782.03 (West 1976). The jury was originally instructed on excusable homicide. The jury in its deliberations requested reinstruction on second-degree murder and manslaughter. Defense counsel requested that the jury also be reinstructed on excusable homicide. The trial court denied defense counsel's request, and reinstructed the jury on only second-degree murder and manslaughter. Even if the failure to reinstruct the jury on excusable homicide may have constituted error under Florida law, see, e.g., Ford v. State, 292 So.2d 390 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1974), that error was not reversible because defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. Compare Turner v. State, 414 So.2d 1161 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1982) (reversible error not to reinstruct on excusable homicide after reinstructing on manslaughter when defendant is convicted of manslaughter) with Dean v. State, 325 So.2d 14 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (not reversible error to fail to reinstruct on excusable homicide after reinstructing on first, second, and third-degree murder when defendant is convicted of first-degree murder), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1976). The failure, then, to reinstruct the jury on…
    PAGE 1488
  9. Cobb v. Wainwright

    666 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 18 times
    Fla.Stat. § 782.03 (1975) defines excusable homicide as a homicide
    PAGE 970