EDWARD CHARLES MCINNIS, 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.
Edward Charles McInnis was convicted of aggravated battery but appeals on the ground that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense. The appellate court found the evidence supported a self-defense instruction and reversed the conviction for a new trial.
The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense because the testimony supported such an instruction. The court correctly denied the voluntary intoxication instruction because no evidence was presented that McInnis was intoxicated.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense if there is any evidence to support their theory of defense, regardless of how weak or improbable the testim…
[2] An instruction on self-defense is not precluded when the accidental infliction of an injury is intertwined with the justifiable use of force.
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 defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it.”
Establishes the foundational rule that trial courts must give jury instructions on any defense theory supported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcInnis and the victim had a fifteen-year personal relationship. The victim testified McInnis entered her apartment and stabbed her multiple times wit…
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 Voluntary Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Edward Charles Mclnnis appeals his conviction for aggravated battery. He contends the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self defense and voluntary intoxication. Because the testimony supported the self defense instruction, we agree, reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.
Mclnnis and the victim were involved in a “personal relationship” for approximately fifteen years. According to the victim’s testimony, the aggravated battery occurred when Mclnnis entered her apartment and stabbed her several times with a knife. According to Mclnnis’ testimony, the victim and her sister attacked him with knives. When the sister hurt Mclnnis’ arm, he grabbed one of the knives. He further testified that his stabbing of the victim was accidental and defensive.
A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it. Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1982); Wenzel v. State, 459 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “A defendant is entitled to his requested self-defense instruction regardless of how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances leading up to the battery.” Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982). A defendant’s assertion that his injury of another was accidental will generally preclude an instruction on self defense. Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984). “However, where there is evidence indicating that the accidental infliction of an injury and the defense of self defense or defense of another are so intertwined that the jury could reasonably find that the accident resulted from the justifiable use of force, an instruction on self defense or defense of another is not logically precluded.” Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Such a situation exists here and the self defense instruction should have been given to the jury. The testimony does not support an accident theory any more than a self defense theory and certainly not to the exclusion of self defense. Because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self defense, we reverse.
Mclnnis also contends the trial court erred by not giving the jury a voluntary intoxication instruction. Unlike in Berry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), no one testified that Mclnnis was intoxicated. Absent such testimony, the trial court correctly denied the requested instruction. See Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we reverse Mclnnis’ conviction for aggravated battery and remand for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)
- Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Aronson, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Wenzel v. State, 459 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hank H. Berry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)