CHRISTIAN ROLLAND SHANNON A/K/A ALFRED REINDEAU, 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.
A defendant charged with battery on a police officer, resisting arrest with violence, and battery appeals his conviction, challenging the trial court's confusing and contradictory jury instructions on self-defense and the use of force to resist arrest. The court reverses because the instructions were incoherent, simultaneously telling the jury that force could be used to resist unlawful arrest while also stating that force can never be used to resist any arrest.
The court reversed the convictions because the contradictory instructions failed to meet the minimum standard of coherence and comprehensibility required of jury instructions. The court held that while force generally cannot be used to resist arrest by a known law enforcement officer, an individual may defend himself against unlawful or excessive force even during arrest under Florida's self-defense statute.
[1] A trial court must provide jury instructions that are coherent and comprehensible.
[2] A jury instruction stating that a person is never justified in using force to resist an arrest is inappropriate when there is evidence of unlawful or excessive force by t…
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“Obviously, these statements are diametrically opposed; they confused — rather than explained — a key principle of law in the defendant's case. The trial court has an obligation to give full instructions on applicable principles of law.”
Establishes that contradictory instructions violate the court's duty to provide coherent, comprehensible jury instructions on applicable law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was involved in a physical altercation in a Fort Lauderdale diner at dawn and was arrested and charged with battery on a police officer,…
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 Use Of Force To Resist Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
This appeal challenges the adequacy of the trial court’s instructions on self-defense. We reverse.
Defendant was involved in a pre-dawn fracas in a Fort Lauderdale diner. As a result, he was arrested, charged and tried for battery on a police officer,1 resisting arrest with violence,2 and battery.3 During the instruction conference at the conclusion of the trial, the defendant objected to the court’s announced intent to read the por tion of Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.04(d) which states that a person is never justified in the use of any force to resist an arrest. The defendant also tendered a special jury instruction which, in essence, stated that an accused could use non-deadly force to resist an arrest if the arresting officer used unlawful or excessive force.
Rather than resolve the conflict between these instructions, the trial court elected to give both back-to-back. Thus, the jury was told that force could be used in certain circumstances to resist an unlawful arrest and, in the next breath, the court stated that a person is never justified in the use of any force to resist an arrest. Obviously, these statements are diametrically opposed; they confused — rather than explained — a key principle of law in the defendant’s case. The trial court has an obligation to give full instructions on applicable principles of law. See Gains v. State, 417 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Implicit is the requirement that instructions be coherent and comprehensible. Those given in the case at bar fail to meet this minimum standard and, thus, we must reverse.
To aid the court on retrial we note that in Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), we held that “the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest.” See also State v. Gilchrist, 458 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Barnard, 405 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Lowery did not involve an allegation of unlawful force in the effectuation of the arrest and, therefore, we left open the question of a defendant’s right to use force in defense of his person under section 776.012. This issue was addressed in Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1982), where the court held that an individual may defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested. See also Jones v. State, 429 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Allen v. State, 424 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1983); Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Thus, on retrial, the court must determine whether there is some proof of unlawful force in effectuating the arrest. If there is, the standard instruction is inappropriate and should not be given. See Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Accordingly, defendant’s convictions and sentences are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . § 784.07, Fla.Stat. (1983).
. § 843.01, Fla.Stat. (1983).
.§ 784.03, Fla.Stat. (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 493 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1986)…to any evidence presented at trial did not constitute harmless error because there exists a reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. See also Florida Power and Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962); Shannon v. State, 463 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Veliz v. American Hospital, Inc., 414 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 424 So. 2d 760 (1982). Any assertion that the errant jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is clearly rebutted when the jury instr…
-
Norton v. State, 691 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…esists a law enforcement officer with violence. State v. Hartzog, 575 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (conviction for offense of battery on a law enforcement officer does not require showing that officer properly arrested suspect); Shannon v. State, 463 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (defendant’s alleged use of force in resisting arrest by person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer unlawful notwithstanding technical illegality of arrest); State v. Barnard, 405 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (warr…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Gains v. State, 417 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Short v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State v. Barnard, 405 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Gilchrist, 458 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Mackie Roy Allen v. State, 424 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Klein v. Lancer, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- McCord Wayne Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)