RAUSHAMON BROWN, 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.
Raushamon Brown was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (screwdriver) after a jury trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense using non-deadly force, even though a screwdriver can be a deadly weapon, because the nature of force used—not the weapon itself—determines which instruction applies.
The trial court erred in refusing to give a non-deadly force self-defense instruction. Where any evidence supports an instruction on either deadly or non-deadly force, both instructions should be given if supported by evidence. The nature of the force used, not the weapon itself, determines which instruction applies, and whether the force was deadly or non-deadly is a question of fact for the jury when not clearly established as a matter of law.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to give a self-defense instruction, either on justifiable use of deadly or non-deadly force, when any evidence supports such an instruction…
[2] When determining which self-defense instruction to give, the trial court should focus on the nature of the force used, not the weapon.
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“Where any evidence supports an instruction on either deadly or non-deadly force, it is error not to give it.”
Establishes the standard that self-defense instructions must be given when evidence supports them, regardless of the weapon used.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was charged with two counts of aggravated assault after using a screwdriver in an altercation with a boyfriend and girlfriend at a bus stop. Bro…
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 Non-Deadly Force cases and more on FLexlaw
Raushamon Brown appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Brown was charged with two counts of aggravated assault after he used a screwdriver in an altercation involving two individuals, a boyfriend and girlfriend, sitting at a bus' stop. According to Brown’s trial testimony, he pulled out the screwdriver in self-defense after the boyfriend approached him in an intimidating manner. During the charge conference, Brown requested a self-defense instruction, either on the justifiable use of deadly or non-deadly force. The trial court refused to grant any instruction, finding that the screwdriver used was a deadly weapon as a matter of law and that there was no evidence to support he was justified in using deadly force.
On review, we find the trial court erred in failing to give the non-deadly force instruction. Where any evidence supports an instruction on either deadly or non-deadly force, it is error not to give it. Curington v. State, 704 So.2d 1137, 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In some instances, the giving of both instructions is warranted. See, e.g., Marshall v. State, 747 So.2d 1045, 1045-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming trial court’s decision to give both deadly and non-deadly force instructions in case involving aggravated assault with firearm as both instructions were supported by evidence). When determining which self-defense instruction to give, the trial court should focus on the nature of the force used, not the weapon. See DeLuge v. State, 710 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). This is so because a deadly weapon can be used without deadly force.1 Id. “If the type of force used is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, only the applicable instruction should be given.”2 Id. Otherwise, the type of force used is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Michaud v. State, 47 So.3d 374, 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
In this case, the couple’s testimony that Brown waved and pointed the screwdriver as if to stab them could support a finding that Brown used deadly, as opposed to non-deadly, force. See Vincente v. State, 669 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding evidence supported conclusion that screwdriver used as a knife with *105which to stab the victim constituted deadly weapon). However, the jury, not the trial court, should have made that determination.
Although the jury ultimately acquitted Brown of aggravated assault against the boyfriend, and even though there was testimony that Brown was not afraid of the girlfriend, the parties’ close proximity during the altercation makes it impossible to distinguish his self-defense claim involving the boyfriend from that involving the girlfriend. According to Brown, he brandished the screwdriver to defend himself against the boyfriend and did not point it at the girlfriend. Under these circumstances, Brown was entitled to the non-deadly force instruction as it related to the boyfriend’s actions taken on the girlfriend’s behalf.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
GRIFFIN and BERGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orando Ricardo Thompson v. State, 257 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…2016). When determining whether to give an instruction on deadly or non-deadly force, the trial court should focus on the nature of the force used, not on the weapon itself, because a deadly weapon can be used without deadly force. Brown v. State, 113 So. 3d 103, 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). If the force used is clearly deadly or nondeadly as a matter of law, only the applicable jury instruction should be given. Larsen v. State, 82 So. 3d 971, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “Where the evidence at trial does not e…
-
Croft v. State, 291 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…giving the requested non-deadly force jury instruction on Croft’s claim of self-defense. When the type of force used by a defendant is clearly deadly or non-deadly as a matter of law, only the applicable instruction should be given. Brown v. State, 113 So. 3d 103, 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting DeLuge v. State, 710 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). However, where there is any evidence presented at trial that supports an instruction on either deadly or non-deadly force, it is error not to give it. Id. (c…
Authorities Cited
- Garramone v. State, 636 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- DeLUGE v. State, 710 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Cruz v. State, 971 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Curington v. State, 704 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Michaud v. State, 47 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Vincente v. State, 669 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Marshall v. State, 747 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)