STANLEY RICH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2003-11-12
No. 4D02-3588
Gunther, J., Warner, J., May, J.
858 So. 2d 1210 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2003) Negative Treatment
Cited by 72 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court reversed conviction for aggravated battery because trial court's jury instruction on self-defense improperly negated defendant's justification claim by conditioning it on not committing the charged offense.


Holding

A jury instruction denying self-defense when the defendant is committing the charged aggravated battery constitutes fundamental error because it improperly negates the defendant's only available defense.


Headnotes

[1] A jury instruction denying self-defense justification when the defendant is charged with and claims self-defense to the same aggravated battery offense constitutes fundam…

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

Key Quotes

“An incorrect jury instruction on the defense of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force constitutes fundamental error if there is a reasonable possibility that the instruction may have led to the conviction.”

Court citing Thomas v. State for the standard that fundamental error occurs when a self-defense instruction is incorrect and reasonably could have contributed to conviction.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant Rich was charged with aggravated battery and claimed self-defense, but the trial court instructed the jury that use of force was not justifi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s conviction for aggravated battery because the trial court negated appellant’s self-defense claim by instructing the jury that the use of force was not justified if appellant was committing or attempting to commit aggravated battery. In Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we held that this instruction, which is based upon section 776.041, Florida Statutes (2002), was applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time. Giving this instruction where the only charge against the defendant is the aggravated battery, which also was the act that the defendant claimed was self-defense, would improperly negate the self-defense claim. See id. at 1266.

Although appellant did not object to this instruction, we hold that it is fundamental error. “An incorrect jury instruction on the defense of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force constitutes fundamental error if there is a reasonable possibility that the instruction may have led to the conviction.” Thomas v. State, 831 So. 2d 253, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citations omitted). We determined in Giles that this instruction was misleading, and it was reasonably possible that it contributed to Giles’ conviction under circumstances similar to this case. 831 So. 2d at 1266. In addition, we have held that fun damental error results where an inaccurate and misleading instruction negates a defendant’s only defense. See Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Reversed and remanded.

GUNTHER, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (36 total)

  • Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)
    …(Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Dunnaway v. State, 883 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Carter v. State, 889 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Barnes v. State, 868 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Placing this requirement as a condition precedent for a finding of fundamental error is especially questionable because Florida law permits a criminal defendant to offer multi…
  • Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
    …attempting to commit, or committing or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery .... Zuniga’s argument is supported by 'the Fourth District’s opinions in Giles v. State, [*1240] 831 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Giles, the court reversed an aggravated battery conviction for a new trial where the jury was instructed: “The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find that the defendant was…
  • Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …self-defense' claim. Id. at 1266. Although Cleveland did not make an objection at trial to the section 776.041(1) instruction, the giving of the instruction to the jury constitutes fundamental error. E.g., Zuniga, 869 So. 2d at 1239; Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED. PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . § 784.041, Fla. Stat. (2002).…

Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw