Background
Keith Eric Agee was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for shooting Brooklyn Sims, the mother of his child, about 15 times while she worked at a Pensacola Home Depot. Agee testified that he became enraged after learning he had tested positive for gonorrhea and believed Sims had infected him. His mother sent texts encouraging him to kill Sims; Agee then drove roughly an hour and a half from Alabama to Pensacola and shot her after a brief encounter.
At trial, Agee admitted intentionally killing Sims and pursued heat of passion as his sole defense, seeking a conviction on a lesser homicide offense. After counsel filed an Anders brief on appeal, the First District ordered supplemental briefing on whether the jury should have been instructed that voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing mitigated by sudden and sufficient provocation, and that heat of passion can reduce murder to manslaughter.
The Court’s Holding
The court per curiam affirmed Agee’s conviction. Rowe and Bilbrey concurred, while Judge Winokur wrote separately.
Judge Winokur concluded that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as an intentional killing mitigated by sudden and sufficient provocation, and by not explaining heat of passion as a partial affirmative defense that can reduce intentional or depraved-mind murder to manslaughter. But he concluded the omissions were not fundamental error on this record. Agee admitted he acted from revenge, the relevant texts preceded the shooting by about 40 minutes, and the in-store encounter did not supply legally sufficient new provocation.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment of conviction for first-degree premeditated murder was affirmed.
- Judge Winokur’s concurrence describes voluntary manslaughter as an intentional killing mitigated by sudden and sufficient provocation, such as heat of passion.
- Even an erroneous omission of heat-of-passion and voluntary-manslaughter instructions does not require reversal absent fundamental error.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves Agee’s conviction intact while highlighting disagreement and uncertainty over Florida manslaughter doctrine and jury instructions. The concurrence emphasizes that revenge, time for reflection, and legally inadequate provocation can defeat a heat-of-passion claim even where the defendant was angry and emotionally distressed.