VERNON WILLIAMS, 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.
Vernon Williams was convicted of aggravated battery for hitting a co-worker with a lawnmower blade. The Fourth District reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force, which was a critical issue since a lawnmower blade is not deadly force as a matter of law.
The trial court erred in refusing the jury instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force. When the type of force used is not clearly deadly as a matter of law, the question of whether the force was deadly or non-deadly must be submitted to the jury. A lawnmower blade is not a deadly weapon as a matter of law, so the instruction should have been given.
[1] A trial court must instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force when the weapon used is not deadly as a matter of law.
[2] The question of whether a weapon is deadly or non-deadly should be submitted to the jury unless the weapon is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law.
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“If the type of force used is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, only the applicable instruction should be given. Otherwise the question of whether the force used by a defendant was 'deadly' or 'non-deadly' should be submitted to the jury.”
Establishes the governing standard for when jury instructions on justifiable force must be given
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams, a lawn maintenance worker, got into an altercation with a co-worker while on their way to a job site. Williams hit the co-worker with a lawn…
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 Non-Deadly Force cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Vernon Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. He argues that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. We reverse.
Appellant worked for a lawn maintenance service. He and a co-worker were on their way to a job site when they got into an argument. The parties dispute the details of the altercation, appellant maintaining that he acted in self-defense, but they agree that appellant hit the co-worker with a lawnmower blade. He was charged with aggravated battery. The trial court gave appellant’s requested instruction on the lesser included crime of battery, but denied his request for a jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. The jury found appellant guilty as charged.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. “If the type of force used is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, only the applicable instruction should be given. Otherwise the question of whether the force used by a defendant was ‘deadly* or ‘non-deadly' should be submitted to the jury.” DeLuge v. State, 710 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Garramone v. State, 636 So. 2d 869, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “[O]nly the discharge of a firearm has been held to be deadly force as a matter of law.” Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
In Albuguergue v. State, 700 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and argued that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. He and the victim were involved in an altercation where, after some words and physical contact, the defendant struck the top of the victim’s car and grázed' the victim’s chest with “the club.” This court stated, “although a knife is a weapon, it is not necessarily a deadly weapon. Clearly, the question of whether this club was a deadly weapon was an issue of fact.” See Id. at 465.
In Caruthers v. State, 721 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the defendant was charged with aggravated battery by using an ax handle to attack two men during an altercation. The court read the instruction on justifiable use of deadly force, but declined the defendant’s request for an instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. Id. The second district stated,
There was no determination in this case, as a matter of law, that an ax handle was a deadly weapon. Therefore, it was error to refuse the instruction on the justifiable use of nondeadly force. Further, it is not harmless error where the court fails to instruct the jury on the nondeadly force in an aggravated battery case involving a weapon that is not deadly as a matter of law.
Id. at 372.
Here, there was no determination that the lawn mower blade was a deadly weapon or a deadly force as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial with instructions to the trial court to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. See Caruthers, 721 So. 2d at 371; DeLuge, 710 So. 2d at 84; Albuguergue, 700 So. 2d at 465.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathews v. State, 799 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ecide the question. See Stewart v. State, 672 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Marshall v. State, 747 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Only a firearm’s discharge has been held to be deadly force as a matter of law. See Williams v. State, 727 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also DeLuge v. State, 710 So. 2d 83, 84 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Stewart, 672 So. 2d at 868; Miller v. State, 613 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Appellant used his hands and feet while committing the offense that re…
-
Carter v. State, 115 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ed is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, only the applicable instruction should be given. Otherwise the question of whether the force used by a defendant was ‘deadly’ or ‘non-deadly’ should be submitted to the jury.” Williams v. State, 727 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citations omit [*1037] ted). “[0]nly the discharge of a firearm has been held to be deadly force as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). This case is factually more similar to the situation we addressed in Marshall v…1 / 2
-
Rickie Mathis v. State, 863 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). When the evidence fails to establish as a matter of law whether the type of force used was deadly or non-deadly, the defendant is entitled to instructions on the justifiable use of both types of force. Williams v. State, 727 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Caruthers v. State, 721 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The only type of force that has been determined to be deadly as a matter of a law is discharging a firearm. Williams, 727 So. 2d at 1063. Thus, it appears from the limited r…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garramone v. State, 636 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- DeLUGE v. State, 710 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Caruthers v. State, 721 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Jurandir Albuguergue v. State, 700 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)