STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CRIMINAL CASES (CASTLE DOCTRINE)
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.
The Florida Supreme Court adopted a standard jury instruction on the castle doctrine for criminal cases, clarifying when a defendant may use deadly force in self-defense within their own home against a co-occupant or lawful invitee. The instruction establishes that while a defendant must retreat within their residence if reasonably possible, they have no duty to flee their home and may stand their ground and use deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The Court adopted the committee's proposed castle doctrine jury instruction with minor modifications, which establishes that a defendant attacked in their own home by a co-occupant or lawful invitee must retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible without increasing their own danger, but has no duty to flee the home and may stand their ground and use deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
[1] A "castle doctrine" jury instruction may be adopted for use in criminal cases involving an attack by a co-occupant or invitee.
[2] A defendant attacked in their own home by a co-occupant or lawful occupant has a duty to retreat within the residence if reasonably possible without increasing danger.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 defendant had a duty to retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible without increasing [his][her] own danger of death or great bodily harm. However, the defendant was not required to flee [his] [her] home and had the lawful right to stand [his][her] ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself][herself].”
The core holding establishing the castle doctrine standard: limited duty to retreat within one's home, but no duty to flee, and the right to use deadly force if necessary.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn Weiand v. State, the Florida Supreme Court had previously adopted an interim castle doctrine jury instruction for use in criminal cases involving a…
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 Stand Your Ground cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, 1057 (Fla.1999), this Court sua sponte adopted a “castle doctrine” jury instruction for use in criminal cases involving an attack by a co-occupant or invitee. We made clear that this was an interim instruction, and specifically instructed the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (“the committee”) “to provide us with any recommendations as to the wording of the instruction.” Id. at 1056 n. 15. The committee in turn made some editorial changes to the instruction; published it for comment in the August 1, 1999, edition of The Florida Bar News; received no comments thereon; and has now submitted its proposed instruction for consideration by this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const; see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.985.
The committee “discussed the issue at length and decided that it could not make any significant improvement on the temporary instruction adopted by the Court in Weiand,” stating that “the instruction [it is] proposing here is essentially the same.” With minor modification, we hereby accordingly authorize the publication and use of the instruction at issue as submitted by the committee and set forth in the appendix attached to this opinion. In so doing, we express no opinion on the correctness of this instruction and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of this instruction. We further caution all interested parties that the comment associated with the instruction reflects only the opinion of the committee and is not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to its correctness or applicability. The instruction as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final. As the inclusion of the language at issue is new to Florida Standard Jury Instruction in Criminal Cases 3.04(d) (“Justifiable Use of Deadly Force”), we forego the usual underlining and strike-through type format.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. APPENDIX
3.04(d) Justifiable Use of Deadly Force
Defense of home against co-occupant
If the defendant was attacked in [his][her] own home or on [his][her] own premises by [a co-occupant] [any person who was lawfully on the premises], the defendant had a duty to retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible without increasing [his][her] own danger of death or great bodily harm.
However, the defendant was not required to flee [his] [her] home and had the lawful right to stand [his][her] ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself][herself].
Comment
This instruction is essentially the same as the temporary instruction adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2007-03, 976 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2008)…s not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 954], 2005 [911 So. 2d 766], and 2006 [gj-F-kn-L, WeeMy-§329-, Fla., May 25,-2006 930 So. 2d 612] and 2008. 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instruction…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2009-01, 27 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2010)…s not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Comment This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 954], 2005 [911 So. 2d 766], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], and 2010. 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. Read in…
-
In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIM. CASES-REPORT 2017-07., 257 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2018)…nt heard of the specific acts prior to the date of the alleged act of self-defense. See Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 954], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], 2008 [976 So. 2d 1081], 2010 [27 So. 3d 640],and 2016 [191 So. 3d 411], and 2018. 3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE [ USE ] [OR] [THREATENED USE] OF NON-DEADLY FORCE Because there are many statutes applicable to self-defense, give only t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Payton v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999)
- Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999)