SHARON M. MILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Sharon Mills was convicted of manslaughter for shooting her mother. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense where sufficient evidence of Mills's claim existed.
The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. When any evidence of substantial character is adduced regarding self-defense, either through cross-examination or direct examination, the issue must be presented to the jury with proper jury instructions, as it is the jury's function to determine the factual question of whether self-defense applies.
[1] A jury instruction on self-defense is required if any evidence of a substantial character, however slight, is adduced that supports the defense, even if the defendant's t…
[2] Proof that a shooting was accidental does not necessarily disprove a claim of self-defense.
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“It is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury's function to determine that issue.”
Establishes the legal standard that triggers a duty to instruct on self-defense—any substantial evidence requires the charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMills's mother recently moved in with her. On the night in question, Mills shot her mother at 2:00 a.m. and called a friend saying her mother was dead…
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 Inconsistent Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sharon Mills raises several points on appeal of her conviction and sentence for manslaughter in the shooting death of her mother. We find merit in Mills’s contention that it was error for the trial court to deny a jury instruction on self defense and we reverse.
The record reveals that Mills’s mother recently moved in with Mills. Mills had expressed some reservations about this living arrangement to a friend because both Mills and her mother had a drinking problem and Mills said her mother had organic brain syndrome.
On the night in question, Mills phoned a friend, Gail Davis, at 2:00 a.m. and said she had just shot her mother and her mother was dead. Davis told Mills to phone the police and then to call back. Davis testified that when Mills called back she said that her mother had been “badgering her and badgering her,” so she took a gun out to scare her, so that her mother would stop. She said her mother had hit her on the nose, that she (Mills) had blood on her nightgown and that it “didn’t look good.”
The officer who responded to the call testified that Mills had said that she and her mother were practicing self defense techniques while she held the handgun and that she slipped and the gun went off.
An expert testified that the victim had some contusions on her hands and on one arm, and a bruised right fist.
Mills testified at trial that while she and her mother were unpacking boxes they heard noises outside. She took the gun out to show her mother how to fire the gun, but her mother grabbed her arm and hit her in the nose. Mills, fearing that her mother might harm herself with the gun, held onto it. The gun went off accidentally and her mother fell to the ground. Mills further testified that she told Davis that her mother was “battering her” not “badgering her.”
Defense counsel requested an instruction on justifiable use of deadly force including self defense at the jury charge conference. The court denied this request. This was error. As one court has said:
It is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury’s function to determine that issue.
Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972).
The state contends that an instruction on self defense would have been inappropriate because defendant’s testimony was inconsistent with such a defense. Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). However, “ ‘inconsistencies in defenses in criminal cases are allowable so long as the proof of one does not necessar ily disprove the other.’ ” Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (quoting Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978)). In the present case, proof that the shooting was accidental, as Mills maintains, does not disprove that Mills was acting in her own self defense. Therefore, the trial court should have instructed the jury on self defense. Accordingly, we
Reverse and remand for a new trial.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, J., concur. HENDRY, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…jury was unintended or accidental does not disprove the defendant’s claim that he was acting in self defense or in defense of another. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the appropriate defensive instruction should be given. See Mills v. State, 490 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); and Hunter v. State, 378 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Cf. Foreman v. State, 47 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1950); and Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837, 841 (1891) (a defendant is entitled to an i…
-
Kiernan v. State, 613 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ellant’s second degree murder conviction. It was error to deny a requested jury instruction on the justifiable use of force. Vazquez v. State, 518 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Mills v. State, 490 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Appellant made several conflicting statements to the police as to how and why the victim was stabbed. These statements, taken in part, could…
-
Moyer v. State, 558 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…t with Moyer’s alibi defense. How could he not be there and yet justifiably have used deadly force? It is true that inconsistent defenses are allowable in criminal cases where the proof of one does not necessarily disprove the other. Mills v. State, 490 So. 2d 204 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), rev. denied 494 So. 2d 1153 (1986). But, in this case the defenses are mutually exclusive. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the trial court must define excusable and justifiable homicide in order to make the manslaughter i…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stripling v. State, 349 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)