JOHN TESTERMAN, 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.
A defendant was convicted of aggravated battery after throwing a beer bottle in a bar altercation. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction because conflicting jury instructions on self-defense improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant instead of requiring the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
The conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. The conflicting jury instructions on the burden of proof for self-defense constituted fundamental error because the law clearly places on the State the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense.
[2] Conflicting jury instructions on the elements of self-defense can constitute 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“It is well-established that the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for burden of proof in self-defense cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a bar confrontation following a racially-heated verbal exchange, the defendant threw a full beer bottle at the victim who was walking toward hi…
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 Burden Of Proof In Self-Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, C.J.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery based on erroneous jury instructions on the defense of self-defense. We agree and reverse and remand for a new trial.
This case involved a confrontation in a bar in which the defendant threw a full beer bottle at the victim. The defendant argued that his action was in defense of himself to protect against a physical attack from the victim, who was walking toward him after a racially-heated verbal exchange.
At closing arguments, the defense argued that the defendant’s actions were justified. A person is justified in using non-deadly force if (a) he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to (b) prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. § 776.012, Fla. Stat. (2006).
The defense explained that the State must prove that the defendant was not acting in defense of himself or another beyond all reasonable doubt. The State objected and the trial court sustained the objection, believing that the obligation was on the defense. In rebuttal argument, the prosecutor argued over objection that the defendant has the burden to prove the two required elements of self-defense. After closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury that the defendant would be justified in using non-deadly force “if the following two facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Several sentences later, the trial court contradicted itself by stating that “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.”
It is well-established that the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. Jenkins v. State, 942 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
A misstatement to the jury of an affirmative defense is error and may amount to fundamental error. For example, in Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), an unobjected to instruction on self-defense was found to be reversible error. In Murray, the trial court submitted written jury instructions to the jury which stated “the Defense must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt” while orally instructing the jury that if they had “a reasonable doubt on the question of whether or not the defendant was justified in the use of [deadly force] ... you should find the defendant not guilty.” Id. at 280.
This court found that the incorrect reasonable doubt instruction, as well as the lower court’s contradictory instructions, amounted to fundamental error. Id. at 281. As in Murray, the conflicting instructions on the defense of self-defense may have led the jury to find the defendant guilty because he did not prove the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The case must be returned for a new trial. The judgment is reversed.
Reversed and Remanded.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…e it essentially defined the defendant’s sole legal defense out of existence. Id. at 281; see Novak v. State, 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Murray and extending it to justifiable use of non-deadly force instruction); Testerman v. State, 966 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding reversible fundamental error when conflicting jury instructions on self-defense may have led jurors to find defendant guilty because he did not prove elements of self-defense beyond reasonable doubt); see generally Campb…
Authorities Cited
- Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Jenkins v. State, 942 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)