EUGENE 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.
Eugene Williams was convicted of aggravated battery, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously gave a jury instruction on self-defense that was circular and confusing. The instruction improperly negated Williams's self-defense claim by applying a statutory exception meant only for cases involving independent forcible felonies.
The court reversed Williams's conviction because giving the section 776.041(1) jury instruction in a case where the defendant claims self-defense to an aggravated battery charge constitutes fundamental error that is not subject to harmless error review. The instruction was applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony, not where the charged crime itself is the subject of the self-defense claim.
[1] A jury instruction on the justifiable use of force is not applicable if the defendant claims self-defense against the very charge for which they are being tried, unless t…
[2] Giving a jury instruction that negates a claim of self-defense when the defendant is charged only with the offense for which self-defense is claimed constitutes fundament…
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“Where a defendant is charged only with an aggravated battery, and the defendant claims that the aggravated battery was in self-defense, giving the instruction improperly negates the self-defense claim.”
Establishes the fundamental error—the jury instruction contradicts the self-defense claim when self-defense is the defendant's response to the very charge filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Williams was charged with aggravated battery against a woman with whom he had been romantically involved. Williams represented himself at trial…
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 Nelson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
We reverse a conviction of aggravated battery because the trial court erroneously gave .a circular and confusing jury instruction that nullified a claim of self-defense.
Eugene Williams was charged with a single count of aggravated battery upon a woman with whom he had been romanti cally involved. Williams rejected the help of an assistant public defender and represented himself at trial.
Williams’s defense was that he hit the victim in self-defense. The trial judge gave the standard jury instruction on the justifiable use of nondeadly force. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(G). The instruction contained the following language drawn from sections 776.041(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (2004), which concern situations when the defense of justifiable use of force is not available:
The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find:
1. That Eugene Williams was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.
2. That Eugene Williams intentionally provoked the use of force against himself....
(Emphasis added).
In Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we held that this jury instruction “was applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time.” Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Where a defendant is charged only with an aggravated battery, and the defendant claims that the aggravated battery was in self-defense, giving the instruction improperly negates the self-defense claim. Id.; Giles, 831 So. 2d at 1266; see also Dunnaway v. State, 883 So. 2d 876, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hickson v. State, 873 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Carter v. State, 889 So. 2d 937, 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362, 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Bates v. State, 883 So. 2d 907, 907-08 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377, 377-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239, 1239-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
To give the section 776.041(1) jury instruction in a case such as this is to commit fundamental error. See Rich, 858 So. 2d at 1210. Contrary to the state’s argument, a “[f]undamental error is not subject to harmless error review [since b]y its very nature, fundamental error has to be considered harmful.” Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366, 369-70 (Fla.2002) (footnote omitted); accord Carter, 889 So. 2d at 939 n. 1.
On the remaining issue, we find no error in the trial judge’s handling of Williams’s foray into self-representation. The court conducted an inquiry under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and determined that Williams knowingly and voluntarily invoked his right to self-representation. Minutes before the jury venire entered the courtroom for trial, Williams’s refusal to accept the assistance of an assistant public defender did not trigger a right to a hearing under Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), adopted by Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1988).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)…efensive position. See Grier v. State, 928 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Bevan v. State, 908 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hardy v. State, 901 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 901 So. 2d 899 (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,…
-
Yolinda Wright Zinnerman v. State, 942 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…tate, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Otherwise, the instruction is circular and negates the defense of self-defense. See Bevan v. State, 908 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 901 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 913 So. 2d 598 (Fla.2005). Several cases have recognized that instructing the jury in such a manner constitutes fundamental error and can be considered in the absence of an objection. See Carter v. State, 889 So. 2d 9…
-
Shepard v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…4th DCA 2003). Where a defendant is charged only with an aggravated bat [*864] tery, and the defendant claims that the aggravated battery was in self-defense, giving the instruction improperly negates the self-defense claim. Id. Williams v. State, 901 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Simply put, section 776.041(1) “does not apply when it is claimed that the acts with which the defendant is charged are themselves committed in appropriate self-defense.” McGahee v. State, 600 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1988)
- Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2002)
- Lamonda D. Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)