HILARY UNIS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed aggravated battery conviction, holding that the castle doctrine does not apply when both combatants are guests with equal rights to occupy the home.
The castle doctrine does not apply where both the defendant and victim are guests with equal rights to occupy the home.
[1] The castle doctrine, which permits use of necessary force without duty to retreat in one's home, does not apply when both combatants are guests with equal rights to occup…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 'castle' doctrine is inapplicable where ... the combatants have equal rights to occupy the 'castle'.”
Court explaining the limitation on castle doctrine applicability when both parties have equal occupancy rights.
Appellant, a social guest in her boyfriend's home, engaged in a fight with the boyfriend's ex-girlfriend and her children, also guests in the home.…
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 Castle Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Appellant’s conviction for aggravated battery. The trial court did not err in denying her request for a jury instruction on the “castle doctrine.” The “castle doctrine” provides that where one is not the aggressor and is violently assaulted in one’s home, there is no obligation to retreat, and one may use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect oneself. See Cannon v. State, 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Appellant was involved in a fight with her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend and her children, which occurred in the boyfriend’s home. Appellant was a social guest, but was not a resident.
The trial court correctly refused to give a jury instruction on the “castle doctrine” where both Appellant and the victim were guests, and as such, both had an equal right to be in the home. “The ‘castle’ doctrine is inapplicable where ... the combatants have equal rights to occupy the ‘castle’.” Roger v. State, 670 So. 2d 160, 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (castle doctrine instruction was inapplicable where victim was living in defendant’s home when murder occurred, and had equal rights to occupy the home); see also Frazier v. State, 681 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (castle doctrine does not apply at workplace where aggressor is a co-worker, as both coworkers have a lawful right to be at the work site where the altercation occurs).
Appellant’s conviction is, therefore, affirmed.
STONE, C.J., and FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Weber v. Gemini Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cora Cannon v. State, 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Wiggins v. State, 670 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Walker v. State, 681 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)