JOHN PRIESTLEY, 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.
Priestley was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a man who attacked him outside a bar. The appellate court reversed because the trial judge gave an erroneous jury instruction on aggravated battery that required proof of a deadly weapon, which negated Priestley's self-defense claim.
The court reversed Priestley's conviction because the trial judge's erroneous jury instruction on aggravated battery—requiring proof that a deadly weapon was used—constituted fundamental error that negated Priestley's self-defense defense, which was supported by the evidence.
[1] An erroneous jury instruction that negates a defendant's defense, when that defense is supported by evidence, constitutes fundamental error.
[2] Aggravated battery requires proof that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, or used a dead…
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“the trial judge defined aggravated battery as follows: Aggravated battery. A person has committed an aggravated battery if: One, that person intentionally touched or struck another against his will or intentionally caused bodily harm to the person. And two, the person committing the battery intentionally or knowingly caused great bodily harm or permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to the other and used a deadly weapon.”
This shows the erroneous jury instruction that required both great bodily harm AND use of a deadly weapon, misrepresenting the statutory 'or' as 'and'.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePriestley and Melvin Gill, a younger and more powerfully built man, went outside a bar. Gill struck Priestley, knocked him down, and repeatedly hit hi…
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 Attempted Aggravated Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Priestley appeals a judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of murder in the second degree. We reverse. The incident giving rise to the charge occurred when Melvin Gill, the victim, and Priestley went outside of a bar. The evidence at trial indicated that Gill was thirty years of age, powerfully built, in good shape, and appeared strong. Priestley, on the other hand, was fifty years old with a normal build. Gill struck Priestley, knocked Priestley down, and repeatedly hit Priestley while on top of him. Priestley pulled a gun and shot Gill while Gill was hitting Priestley.
The trial judge found that there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether Gill had committed an attempted aggravated battery upon Priestley. While instructing the jury relating to Priestley’s defense of justifiable use of deadly force, the trial judge defined aggravated battery as follows:
Aggravated battery. A person has committed an aggravated battery if:
One, that person intentionally touched or struck another against his will or intentionally caused bodily harm to the person.
And two, the person committing the battery intentionally or knowingly caused great bodily harm or permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to the other and used a deadly weapon.
Thereafter, the trial judge provided the jury with written jury instructions containing this same instruction, and the prosecutor, in closing argument, stated a deadly weapon was required to commit an attempted aggravated battery. The jury instruction and the prosecutor’s statement were a misstatement of the law.*
Priestley’s trial counsel failed to object to this instruction and agreed the instruction was correct. Because this instruction had the effect of negating Priestley’s defense, which the trial court found was supported by the evidence, we find that the giving of this erroneous instruction was fundamental error. See Lee v. State, 526 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
We find no merit in Priestley’s other point on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED POR A NEW TRIAL.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. *
The jury instruction is patterned from section 784.045, which provides:
(1) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
(a) Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement: or (b) Uses a deadly weapon.
§ 784.045, Fla.Stat. (1985) (emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- In re the Forfeiture OF United States Currency IN THE Amount OF Seven Thousand ONE Hundred Thirty-Seven Dollars & NO/100 ($7, 526 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- LEE v. State, 526 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)