ERIC R. JOHNSON, 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.
Appellant was convicted of battery on two police officers but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously refused to give a self-defense instruction. The court held that self-defense is a viable defense to battery on a police officer and that circumstantial evidence can support the jury inferring the necessary state of mind for self-defense.
Self-defense is applicable to a charge of battery on a police officer, and a jury instruction on self-defense should be given when circumstantial evidence could support the inference that the defendant believed his conduct was necessary to defend against imminent unlawful force, even if the defendant does not directly testify to such belief.
[1] A self-defense instruction is applicable to a charge of battery on a police officer.
[2] Circumstantial evidence may be used to support a jury instruction on 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“a self-defense instruction is applicable to a charge of battery on a police officer, even though it is not applicable to a charge of aggravated assault”
Establishes the core holding that self-defense is a valid defense to battery on police officers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with and convicted of battery upon two police officers. Appellant testified that he did not remember hitting the officers due to…
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 Self-Defense Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of battery upon two police officers. We reverse and remand for a new trial because appellant was entitled to a requested instruction on self-defense.
We reach the issue not reached in Hamilton v. State, 458 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and conclude that a self-defense instruction is applicable to a charge of battery on a police officer, even though it is not applicable to a charge of aggravated assault. See Williams v. State, 597 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982). The question here then becomes whether such an instruction can be sufficiently supported by circumstantial evidence from which the jury might infer that appellant had the state of mind necessary for self-defense. We found no case that directly addressed this question.
However, circumstantial evidence is admissible to prove other states of mind, such as intent and premeditation. Phippen v. State, 389 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1980); Coester v. State, 573 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Cooper v. Wainwright, 308 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 312 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1975).
Therefore, it seems logical that a jury might also reasonably infer from the circumstantial evidence presented that appellant had the state of mind necessary for a theory of self-defense, i.e., that appellant believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself against imminent unlawful force.
In fact, since the jury found appellant guilty of battery on two police officers, they must have inferred from circumstantial evidence the intent required for that crime. Appellant did not testify to such an intent and, in fact, testified that he did not remember hitting the officers.1 Since the jury presumably inferred an intent to strike the police officers, it seems reasonable that they could have also inferred that appellant had the belief required for self-defense. Therefore, this issue should have gone to the jury.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . Appellant had ingested several different prescription medicines and apparently had consumed about seven alcoholic drinks on the night in question. Consequently, according to his testimony, appellant could remember only bits and pieces of the incident at issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…police officer can be supported by circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself from an officer’s use of excessive force in making an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). To raise self-defense, a defendant does not have to testify directly about his intent behind an act occurring in the past, or that he made a conscious decision to defend himself in a certain way. Not remembering an event d…
-
O'Hara v. State, 642 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…, the trial court should have instructed the jury on the defense’s requested instruction on resisting an unlawful arrest without violence, Dean v. State, 466 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and justifiable use of non-deadly force, Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We also note that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that “Officer Lamm was an officer and was an officer within the meaning of the law.” Under Wright v. State, 586 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1991), the trial court should mere…
-
Goode v. State, 856 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…cts and had been properly instructed, could have concluded that the appellant’s actions were defensive and reasonable, even when the appellant testified that she did not remember important facts central to the charges against her); Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (reversing and remanding for a new trial because the trial court failed to give the requested instruction of self-defense, when the appellant provided circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the appellant…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phippen v. State, 389 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1980)
- Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358 (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)
- Cooper v. Louie L. Wainwright, 308 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Hamilton v. State, 458 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cooper v. Louie L. Wainwright, 312 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1975)
- Williams v. State, 597 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Coester v. State, 573 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)