SAMIE SIMS SMITH, 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.
Samie Sims Smith was convicted of aggravated battery for stabbing Germaine Ross, claiming self-defense. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court's jury instruction on self-defense was fundamental error, as it circularly negated the defendant's sole defense by conditioning self-defense on whether the defendant was committing aggravated battery.
The instruction constituted fundamental error because it was circular and confusing, essentially negating the defendant's sole defense by conditioning the justifiability of force on whether the defendant was committing the very offense he sought to justify as self-defense. Fundamental error is found when a defendant commits a single act, claims self-defense, and receives this instruction without an additional independent forcible felony charge.
[1] A jury instruction stating that the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if the defendant was attempting to commit, committing, or e…
[2] The giving of a jury instruction that circularly negates a defendant's sole defense of self-defense constitutes fundamental error.
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“the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find Samie Sims Smith was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of aggravated battery.”
The problematic jury instruction that the trial court gave, which constituted fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith stabbed Ross during an altercation that began when Ross confronted Smith about allegedly slapping Ross's mother. During the brawl, Ross punched …
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 Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Samie Sims Smith appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. Because the jury instruction on self-defense constituted fundamental error under established case law, we reverse.
Mr. Smith was charged with aggravated battery for stabbing Germaine Ross. At trial, Mr. Smith’s sole defense was that he stabbed Mr. Ross in self-defense. It was undisputed that the incident between the two men began when Mr. Ross confronted Mr. Smith and accused him of slapping Mr. Ross’s mother. During the ensuing brawl, Mr. Ross punched Mr. Smith in the jaw with enough force that he broke some of Mr. Smith’s teeth. According to Mr. Ross, he did this because Mr. Smith grabbed him by the throat and would not let go. Soon after Mr. Ross punched Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith stabbed Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross claimed Mr. Smith stabbed him with a knife that Mr. Smith must have retrieved from his car when the two first exchanged words. Mr. Smith claimed that he had been working on his car with a screwdriver and that he used this screwdriver to stab Mr. Ross.
At the close of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part: “[T]he use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find Samie Sims Smith was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of aggravated battery.” It is well established that this standard instruction is not appropriate unless the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony, in addition to the offense for which he claims self-defense. See Martinez v. State, 933 So. 2d 1155, 1157-58, 2006 WL 1331498 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2006) (rehearing pending) (citing cases from each district that hold the giving of this instruction is error). As explained in Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the instruction is “circular and confusing to the jury” because it improperly instructs the jury that the very act that the defendant seeks to justify as an act of self-defense prevents that same act from being an act of self-defense. Id. at 1266.
Mr. Smith’s counsel did not object to this instruction. This court has, however, consistently held that this instruction “essentially negates the defense and constitutes fundamental error when a defendant committed a single act and claimed self-defense.” Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377, 377-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Until recently, every case addressing this issue had concluded the same. See Martinez, 933 So. 2d at 1166 n. 2 (Green, J., dissenting).
In Martinez, however, a majority of a panel from the Third District concluded, based upon the facts of the case before them, that the giving of this instruction was not fundamental error. In reviewing the various cases on the subject, the majority concluded that “the appellate courts consistently have found fundamental error in those cases where the erroneous instruction negates the defendant’s sole defense.” Id. at 1166. Because the defendant in Martinez had presented numerous defenses in addition to self-defense and because the evidence presented regarding the various wounds inflicted on the victim was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of self-defense, the majority concluded that no fundamental error occurred. Id. at 1167.
In this case, we do not need to decide whether we agree with all of the discussion presented in Martinez regarding fundamental error. Under this court’s prior precedent and the reasoning in Martinez, fundamental error occurred in this case. Self-defense was the only defense Smith asserted at trial. There was evidence to support that defense, and it was the sole focus of the closing arguments at trial. Based upon our precedent and the record in this case, we conclude that the giving of this jury instruction was fundamental error. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…to self-defense because it totally negates the defense by improperly instructing the jury that the very 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 certif…1 / 2
-
McJIMSEY v. State, 959 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…uction was erroneous. Our sister courts have also concluded that, in circumstances which are not distinguishable from this case, it is fundamental error to give this instruction. Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Grier v. State, 928 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See also Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding the same instruction, which had been objected to, error requiring a new trial). Reversed for a new trial W…
-
Terald Redding v. State, 41 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ception should not be given “unless the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony, in addition to the offense [*355] for which he claims self-defense.” Wilson v. State, 944 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); see also Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449, 454 (Fla.2008). When the instruction is read in the absence of a charge of an independent forcible felony, it essentially negates the defendant’s theory of self-defense. See Mart…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Intcomex Holdings, LLC v. Grant Thornton Int'l, 933 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)