CURT CRAVEN, 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.
The court reversed appellant's aggravated battery conviction because the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that the defendant could not claim self-defense if he was committing aggravated battery, which improperly negated his self-defense claim when aggravated battery was the only charge.
A trial court commits fundamental error by instructing the jury that a defendant cannot claim justifiable use of force if he is committing aggravated battery when aggravated battery is the only charge, because such instruction improperly negates the self-defense claim.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error by instructing the jury that a defendant cannot claim justifiable use of force if committing the charged offense of aggravated bat…
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“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.”
Explanation from Rich v. State regarding when the instruction is proper versus improper
Appellant Craven was charged with aggravated battery. The trial court instructed the jury that Craven was not justified in using force if he was attem…
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 Justifiable Use Of Force cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We reverse appellant’s conviction of aggravated battery because the trial court fundamentally erred in instructing the jury on appellant’s defense of justifiable use of force. The court instructed the jury that appellant was not justified in the use of force if he was “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.” Where, as here, the defendant is charged only with the forcible felony of aggravated battery, we have held that giving the foregoing portion of the instruction amounts to fundamental error, because it negates the appellant’s self-defense claim. See Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Rich we relied on our prior opinion in Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and explained that this portion of the instruction
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.
858 So. 2d at 1210. See also Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Dunnaway v. State, 883 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Consistent with the foregoing authorities, we reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)…held that the determination of whether fundamental error has occurred requires a full review of the record. Id. . See, e.g., Bertke v. State, 927 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Newcomb v. State, 913 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Craven v. State, 908 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Ruiz v. State, 900 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Swanson v. State, 921 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). . The jury was instructed as follows: However, the use of force lik…
-
Shepard v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ave recently re-emphasized that fundamental error results when a trial court gives the section 776.041(1) jury instruction in cases where the defendant is charged with an offense as to which the defendant relies on self-defense. See Craven v. State, 908 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Fair v. State, 902 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we held that this jury instruction “was applicable…
-
Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…act the defendant seeks to justify as an act of self-defense prevents the same act from being an act of self-defense. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Grier v. State, 928 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Craven v. State, 908 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Sloss v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2328, 2005 WL 2396309 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 30, 2005), rehearing granted and question certified, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D879, 2006 WL 733568 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 24, 2006) (en banc), review granted, 929…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamonda D. Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Dunnaway v. State, 883 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)