MARIO REYES ORTIZ, 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.
Mario Reyes Ortiz was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm after shooting Mr. Gologram in the leg during a knife fight. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court gave a constitutionally defective 'circular' jury instruction on self-defense that incorrectly told the jury it could not consider justifiable use of force as a defense to the charged offense.
The court reversed because the circular jury instruction constituted fundamental error. The court held that Ortiz was entitled to a legally adequate jury instruction on self-defense because there was sufficient evidence to support his theory of self-defense, including his testimony that he feared imminent great bodily harm and that Gologram was the aggressor.
[1] A jury instruction on the justifiable use of force that incorrectly states that the use of force cannot be justified if it occurs while the defendant is committing the ch…
[2] A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support that theory, even if the evidence is debatable.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory.”
Establishes the standard for when a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense like self-defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 6, 2001, Ortiz and his girlfriend visited Mr. Gologram's home to deliver gifts. When the two men argued, both pulled knives while Ortiz's …
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 Circular Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Mario Reyes Ortiz appeals a judgment for aggravated battery with a firearm resulting in great bodily harm, asserting that the trial court committed fundamental error in providing a circular jury instruction on the justifiable use of force. We reverse based upon the controlling precedent of Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also 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). We write to expressly reject the State’s argument that the error was not fundamental because, as a matter of law, Mr. Ortiz was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense. See, e.g., Sutton v. State, 929 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Thomas v. State, 918 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
The charges against Mr. Ortiz arose as a result of a familial dispute between Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Gologram, the adult son of Mr. Ortiz’s girlfriend. On February 6, 2001, Mr. Ortiz and his girlfriend went to Mr. Gologram’s home to deliver gifts to Mr. Gologram’s child. Mr. Gologram did not like Mr. Ortiz and had in fact told his mother not to bring Mr. Ortiz to his home. When Mr. Ortiz and his girlfriend arrived at Mr. Gologram’s home, the two men argued. They both pulled knives while Mr. Ortiz’s girlfriend stood between them attempting to break up the fight. At some point, Mr. Ortiz reached into his car, retrieved a gun, and fired it at Mr. Golo-gram, hitting him in the leg. Mr. Ortiz testified that he did so because he thought Mr. Gologram was getting ready to throw his knife at Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz clearly testified that he believed he was at risk of imminent great bodily harm when he drew the gun and shot Mr. Gologram. Although the facts necessary to determine whether that belief was reasonable were disputed, there were sufficient facts that could have supported a jury verdict concluding either that Mr. Ortiz acted in justifiable self-defense or that he did not.
The trial court gave the jury an instruction on the justifiable use of force. Unfortunately, it was the standard instruction, which is a “circular” instruction that incorrectly informs the jury that the use of force cannot be justified if it occurs while the defendant is committing the charged offense. We have repeatedly criticized this instruction and held it to be fundamental error.1 See Smith, 933 So. 2d 1275; Velazquez, 884 So. 2d 377; Baker, 877 So. 2d 856; Zuniga, 869 So. 2d 1239.
Despite this body of precedent, the State argues that we should affirm the judgment based upon the reasoning in Sutton, 929 So. 2d 1105, and Thomas, 918 So. 2d 327. In these cases, the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal concluded that no fundamental error occurred in the giving of the circular instruction on self-defense because, as a matter of law, the defendant had not presented evidence entitling him to a proper instruction on self-defense. This appears to rest on a conclusion that an error in an instruction on a defense is harmless so long as the defendant was not legally entitled to have the jury consider the defense.
Without deciding whether we agree with the analysis applied in Sutton and Thomas, we cannot agree that Mr. Ortiz was not, as a matter of law, entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory. Upshaw v. State, 871 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Even though Mr. Ortiz’s theory of self-defense and the evidence supporting it were debatable, given the testimony that Mr. Gologram was the aggressor, Mr. Ortiz was entitled to receive a legally adequate instruction on self-defense. We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . In fairness to the trial court, it should be observed that this case was tried in 2002 before this case law was well established. This appeal is the result of a successful petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See Ortiz v. State, 905 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)…curred, the district courts only reviewed the record to determine whether the defendant was entitled to an instruction on self defense in the first place — not whether the defendant had a strong case for self-defense. For example, in Ortiz v. State, 942 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the Second District noted that even though Ortiz’s claim of self defense was “debatable,” it could not conclude as a matter of law that Ortiz was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense. Therefore, the Second Distric…
-
Flynn v. State, 947 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…truction on self-defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the courts engaged in a fundamental error analysis that this court has not expressly adopted. Again, this is not the first time this argument has been made to this court. See Ortiz v. State, 942 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). As we did in Ortiz, we decline to decide whether to agree with the fundamental error analyses employed by the Sutton and Thomas courts. Flynn presented sufficient evidence to support a jury instruction on self-defense in the form…
-
Barnes v. State, 969 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…939, 940-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Berrios v. State, 781 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); but see Flynn v. State, 947 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (declining to answer whether court agreed with Sutton and Thomas analyses); Ortiz v. State, 942 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (same). Therefore, the State argues, if Barnes was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense as a matter of law, we should affirm. When the shooting occurred, Barnes had a duty to retreat in most situations before he co…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Zuniga v. State, 869 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Ortiz v. State, 905 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Baker v. State, 877 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Samie Sims Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Rancourt v. State, 918 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Kwamin Hassan Thomas v. State, 918 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Vondyleyn M. Sutton v. State, 929 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Elvie Clarence Martin, Jr. v. Martin, 871 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Herschel Upshaw v. State, 871 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)