JESSE DAVID WAGERS, 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.
Jesse Wagers was convicted of felony battery against his brother. On appeal, Wagers challenged the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on justifiable use of non-deadly force, and the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the girlfriend's testimony that the victim approached in an 'aggressive way' was sufficient to warrant the instruction.
Yes. The court held that even though the evidence was sparse and the testimony vague, the girlfriend's testimony was sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force because any evidence supporting a self-defense theory must result in the instruction being given.
[1] A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of defense if there is any evidence to support the theory and the theory is recognized as valid und…
[2] A trial court should give a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence, however flimsy or improbable, to support the theory.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 the theory and the theory is recognized as valid under the law of the state.”
Establishes the core legal principle that limits trial court discretion in criminal cases regarding jury instructions on recognized defenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWagers was charged with aggravated battery of his half-brother who lived with Wagers and Wagers's girlfriend. The victim sustained severe injuries req…
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
Jesse Wagers (“Appellant”) appeals from his conviction for felony battery. His only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
*1117Appellant was charged with the aggravated battery of his brother1 who lived with Appellant and Appellant’s girlfriend prior to this incident. The injuries the brother sustained were so severe that he was hospitalized for five days, he required multiple plates to hold his bones in place, and all of his teeth had to be removed.
Appellant claims that his girlfriend’s testimony raised an issue of self-defense. On direct examination by the State, she testified that she saw the brother approaching Appellant in “an aggressive way.” Because there was no follow up or clarification about what she witnessed, the trial judge understandably struggled with the vagueness of that testimony, and refused to give a requested jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force.2
This Court generally reviews the giving or withholding of a jury instruction for abuse of discretion. Cruz v. State, 971 So.2d 178, 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing Worley v. State, 848 So.2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)).3 However, in criminal cases, the trial court’s discretion is more restricted “because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support the theory and the theory is recognized as valid under the law of the state.” Id. If there is any evidence to support a the'ory of self-defense, the trial court should give the requested instruction “however flimsy the evidence is which supports that theory ... or however weak or improbable [the] testimony may have been.” Arthur v. State, 717 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see, e.g., Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424, 425, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (indicating that when victim was “aggressive during confrontation” and was “highly agitated, cursed, and screamed at appellant,” instruction on use of deadly force was warranted); Stewart v. State, 672 So.2d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (concluding that when conflicting testimony was presented, including defendant’s testimony that victim “proceeded toward him while yelling and swearing” in “a threatening manner,” evidence was sufficient to warrant self-defense instruction). Accordingly, while the evidence supporting a self-defense instruction was indeed sparse in this case, Appellant’s girlfriend’s testimony was sufficient to warrant the instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Radler v. State, 290 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…that the use of non-deadly force is necessary to defend oneself against the imminent use of unlawful force.” Hosnedl, 126 So. 3d at 403 (citing Michel v. State, 989 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). Defendant relies heavily on Wagers v. State, 199 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), as support for his position. There, the only evidence supporting a self-defense theory was the defendant’s girlfriend’s testimony that the victim approached the defendant in “an aggressive way.” Id. at 1117. The trial court d…
-
Armen J. Pilafjian v. State, 210 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…r invited entry, which he sought to establish as an affirmative defense to the burglary charge.2 We review the failure to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, although that discretion is limited in criminal cases. See Wagers v. State, 199 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Burglary is defined as entering a dwelling, structure, or conveyance with the intent to commit an offense “unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter.” See § 81…
-
Gonzalez v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…there is any evidence to support a theory of self- defense, the trial court should give the requested instruction however flimsy the evidence is which supports that theory or however weak or improbable the testimony may have been.” Wagers v. State, 199 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (internal quotations, alterations omitted)); see also Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“A defendant is entitled to his requested s…
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
- Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- McCONNELL v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Stewart v. State, 672 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Cruz v. State, 971 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Michael v. Montijo, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- K. K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)