MACKIE ROY ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1982-12-16
No. AJ-460
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
424 So. 2d 101 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Allen was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court instructed the jury that it could not acquit based on self-defense if the defendant was being arrested by a law enforcement officer, but the appellate court found this instruction an incorrect statement of law while affirming the conviction as harmless error.


Holding

The standard jury instruction 3.04(d) is not a correct statement of Florida law because it states force can never be used to resist arrest, when in fact an individual may defend against unlawful or excessive force even during arrest. However, the error was harmless where the defendant's own statements admitted reaching for a gun and no evidence supported a claim of unlawful or excessive force.


Headnotes

[1] A jury instruction stating that a defendant may never use force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer is an incorrect statement of Florida law.

[2] An individual may defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“an individual may defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested”

Establishes the correct legal standard that contradicts the jury instruction given

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Allen was being arrested by a law enforcement officer. During the arrest, Allen reached for his gun and the officer hit his hand with a flashlight. Al…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Judge.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Allen appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted first degree murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. He argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could not acquit the defendant on the ground of self-defense if it found that the defendant was being arrested by a law enforcement officer, and if defendant knew that the man was an officer or he reasonably appeared to be one. Although we agree with appellant that the instruction given is not a correct statement of the law, we find this error harmless on the record sub judiee and affirm.

Florida standard jury instruction (criminal) 3.04(d) is the standard jury instruction on self-defense. It states, among other things:

A person is never justified in the use of any force to resist an arrest. Therefore, you cannot acquit the defendant on the ground of self-defense if you find the following facts have been proved:

1. The defendant was being arrested by (victim).

2. The defendant knew (victim) was a law enforcement officer or (victim) reasonably appeared under the circumstances to be a law enforcement officer. Id. at page 43. This standard jury instruction is not a totally correct statement of Florida law. It is based on section 776.-051(1), Florida Statutes (1981).1 In Inves ter v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1982), we held that section 776.051 must be read in pari materia with section 776.012, Florida Statutes, which justifies the use of force in certain circumstances.2 Ivester states that an individual may defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested. Id. at 930. This holding directly conflicts with the language of the jury instruction sub judice which states that force may never be used. Therefore, the use of this standard jury instruction is error. In the instant case, however, this error is harmless. The evidence most favorable to the defendant presented at trial was that contained in the defendant’s own tape recorded statement. In his statement, the defendant admitted that he was reaching for his gun at the time the officer hit defendant’s hand with the flashlight. The record is devoid of any evidence from which a jury could conclude that unlawful or excessive force was being used by the officer. AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1981) states:

A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, .to be a law enforcement officer. . Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (1981) states:
A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
    …ter were law enforcement officers or that Officer E. Brewster ... Or Officer Guy ... E. Borges or Officer Guy Brewster reasonably appeared under the circumstances to be a law enforcement officer. As pointed out in the recent case of Allen v. State, 424 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 436 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1983), this standard jury instruction is wrong because it tells a jury that force by an arrestee may never be used, even to rebut excessive force, if he knows, or reasonably should know, that his as…
  • Wilton James Langston v. State, 789 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …some evidence that, if believed by the jury, could have resulted in a “not guilty” verdict on the charge of resisting with violence. To Appellant’s detriment, the jury was never instructed that they could acquit on those grounds. See Allen v. State, 424 So. 2d 101, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (citing Ivester for the proposition that an individual may defend himself or herself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested). Whether Deputy Walker used excessive force in apprehending Appellant, and w…
  • State v. Ernie Ray Holley, 480 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1985)
    …s one of great public importance: Is Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.04(d) a correct statement of the law in light of Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1982), and Allen v. State, 424 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1983)? Id. at 579. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We find, as the state concedes, that standard jury instruction 3.04(d), as it existed at the time of this trial, did not…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw