EUGENE FITZGERALD BARNES, 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.
On remand following Martinez v. State, the court affirmed Barnes' conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, holding that the trial court's instruction on the forcible felony exception to self-defense, though flawed, did not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the State did not rely on the exception at trial.
The instruction was not fundamental error. The forcible felony exception applies only when a defendant engages in an independent forcible felony and should rarely be included in jury instructions. Because this case involved overwhelming evidence of guilt, the State never relied on the exception, and fundamental error requires that an instruction be 'so flawed as to deprive defendants claiming the defense of a fair trial,' reversal was not warranted.
[1] The forcible felony exception to self-defense applies only when the defendant engages in an independent forcible felony.
[2] Jury instructions on the forcible felony exception to self-defense should generally be omitted.
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 forcible felony exception applies only in cases when the defendant engages in an independent forcible felony. Thus, the exception is very narrowly applied, and in most cases should simply be omitted from the instructions given to the jury.”
Establishes that the forcible felony exception to self-defense is narrowly construed and should rarely be included in jury instructions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnes shot Kenneth Brown eight times, including once in the back as the victim fled. Barnes was charged with attempted murder in the first degree and…
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 Forcible Felony Exception To Self-Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, we have vacated and withdrawn our previously issued mandate in light of Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (FIa,2008), which addressed the forcible felony exception to self-defense. In relevant part, the forcible felony exception provides that a defendant may not avail himself of the defense of self-defense if he is engaged in attempting, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony. § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Trial courts have undoubtedly encountered difficulty in applying and instructing on this exception.
Martinez, 981 So.2d at 454, makes clear that the forcible felony exception applies only in cases when the defendant engages in an independent forcible felony. Thus, the exception is very narrowly applied, and in most cases should simply be omitted from the instructions given to the jury. Martinez further holds that when the defendant fails to contemporaneously object and the challenged jury instruction involves an affirmative defense, as opposed to an element of the crime, “fundamental error only occurs where a jury instruction is ‘so flawed as to deprive defendants claiming the defense ... of a fair trial.’ ” Id. at 455, citing Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106, 108 (Fla.1988). The fundamental error doctrine “should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.” Id. at 455, citing Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981).
Barnes was charged with attempted murder in the first degree stemming from the shooting of Kenneth Brown. The case proceeded to trial where the jury was instructed on Barnes’ claim of self-defense. As part of that instruction, the jury was informed the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm was not justified if Barnes was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of attempted murder and/or aggravated battery. Barnes did not object to the instruction. The jury subsequently convicted Barnes of attempted murder in the second degree.
After reviewing the complete record, we conclude that this is not one of those rare cases where the interests of justice compel reversal. The victim in this case was shot eight times, including once in the back while he fled from the hail of bullets. Furthermore, the State never argued to the jury that Barnes’ commission of a forcible felony in shooting Brown defeated his claim of self-defense.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…Martinez not guilty of attempted murder. See id. That is, Martinez received a fair trial, and the facts did not present a compelling claim of fundamental error. Id. at 457; accord Clark v. State, 28 So. 3d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Barnes v. State, 12 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (on remand) (concluding that giving the “forcible felony” instruction, absent an independent forcible felony, was not fundamental error in a prosecution for attempted first-degree murder where defendant asserted self-defense, giv…
-
Vowels v. State, 32 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…l court led the jury to believe that Vowels’ theory of self-defense was not available to him because he conceded that he committed an aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. This case is distinguishable from this Court’s ruling in Barnes v. State, 12 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). In Barnes, it was apparent from the facts of the case that the reading of the forcible-felony exception to self-defense was not fundamental error. There, the claim of self-defense was significantly weaker than it is here because…
-
Sloss v. State, 45 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…en of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Sipple did not act in self-defense. As in Stoute, the defendant was granted a new trial. The trial court below found that the facts of the instant case to be more similar to Martinez and Barnes v. State, 12 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), than to Stoute. We respectfully disagree. In Martinez and Barnes, the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and the self-defense claims were implausible.1 Here, the evidence was hardly overwhelming. A jury could reason…
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
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)
- Smith v. State, 521 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1988)