EDDIE FRANK REYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Reynolds appealed his aggravated battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to reininstruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and self-defense after reinstructing on the offense and lesser included offenses. The court affirmed, holding that reinstructions on defenses are required only when the statutory definition of the charged offense necessarily excludes the defense.
The trial court did not err in refusing to reininstruct on voluntary intoxication and self-defense. Reinstructions on applicable defenses are required only when the statutory definition of the charged offense specifically excludes the defense, such that full and complete instruction on the offense necessarily includes the defense. Since neither aggravated battery nor its lesser included offenses exclude acts of self-defense or intoxicated acts, the reinstructions on the offense itself were sufficient.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to reinstruct a jury on defenses when the jury is reinstructed on the charged offense and its lesser included offe…
[2] A trial court must provide a full and complete instruction on any offense charged, which may necessitate reinstructing on related defenses if the offense definition exclu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when a jury is reinstructed on the offense of manslaughter, the trial court must also rein-struct on justifiable and excusable homicide”
Establishes the rule for when defenses must be included in reinstructions based on statutory definitions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReynolds was tried for aggravated battery. At the close of trial, the court instructed the jury on aggravated battery, lesser included offenses, volun…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Justifiable Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In this criminal appeal, Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in refusing to reinstruct the jury on the defenses of voluntary intoxication and self-defense after it had reinstructed the jury on aggravated battery and the lesser included offenses. We affirm.
Reynolds was charged with and tried for the offense of aggravated battery. At the close of the trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of this offense and on all of its lesser included offenses. At Reynolds’ request, the trial court also gave instructions on voluntary intoxication and on self-defense.
The jury then retired and deliberated approximately forty minutes before asking to be reinstructed on the elements of aggravated battery. The trial court reinstructed the jury on aggravated battery and its lesser included offenses, but it refused Reynolds’ request that reinstruction be given on voluntary intoxication and self-defense. Thereafter, the jury resumed deliberation and returned a verdict of guilty as charged.
Citing Pridgeon v. State, 425 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Reynolds argues that the trial court erred when it refused to give the requested reinstructions on voluntary intoxication and self-defense. We cannot agree.
Pridgeon is the most recent in a line of cases beginning with Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965), holding that when a jury is reinstructed on the offense of manslaughter, the trial court must also reinstruct on justifiable and excusable homicide. The rationale underlying those cases is that the jury must always be given a full and complete instruction on any offense charged. Because the statutory definition of manslaughter specifically excludes those homicides which are justifiable or excusable, a full and complete instruction on manslaughter must necessarily include instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide. See Section 782.07, Florida Statutes (1981).
Those cases do not' hold, as Reynolds urges, that the trial court must always rein-struet on the applicable defenses when it reinstructs on the offense charged. See Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1978), where it was held that the trial court did not err in failing to reinstruct on justifiable or excusable homicide when it had rein-structed only on first and second degree murder and not on manslaughter. Neither the definition of aggravated battery nor that of any of its lesser included offenses excludes acts of self-defense or acts performed while intoxicated. The instruction on aggravated battery was therefore complete, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstruct on self-defense or voluntary intoxication.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Henry v. State, 359 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1978)
- Pridgeon v. State, 425 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)