KEVIN BROOME, 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.
Appellant's felony battery conviction is reversed because the trial court erred in denying a jury instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force when evidence supported the defense theory.
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force when any evidence, including the defendant's own testimony, supports that theory of defense.
[1] A request for a jury instruction on an affirmative defense is timely when made after closing arguments and before the jury retires to deliberate, even if not requested at…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such a theory, even if the only evidence comes from the defendant's own testimony.”
Establishing the standard for jury instructions on affirmative defenses supported by evidence
Appellant was convicted of felony battery and requested a jury instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force after closing arguments and before ju…
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 Justifiable Use Of Non-Deadly Force cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from his conviction for felony battery, appellant claims the trial court committed reversible error in denying his request for a jury instruction on the justifiable use of nondeadly force. A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such a theory, even if the only evidence comes from the defendant’s own testimony. Bozeman v. State, 714 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Although appellant did not request the instruction at the charge conference, the request was still timely when it was made after closing argumente and renewed before the jury retired to deliberate. See Curington v. State, 704 So.2d 1137, 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Ramsaran v. State, 664 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Rogers v. State, 626 So.2d 339, 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Williams v. State, 597 So.2d 377, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bunn v. State, 363 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Based on his trial testimony, appellant was entitled to have the jury instructed on the justifiable use of nondeadly force. See Gregory v. State, 937 So.2d 180, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction for felony battery and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
RAY, SWANSON, MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Gregory v. State, 937 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Bunn v. State, 363 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Curington v. State, 704 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Williams v. State, 597 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Darrin Bernard Rogers v. State, 626 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Jetindra Ramsaran v. State, 664 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)