L. D. MCDANIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1965-11-02
No. 65-294
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
179 So. 2d 576 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965) Negative Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case reviews a jury instruction on self-defense in a criminal trial. The appellate court found the instruction to be erroneous, leading to a reversal of the conviction and a new trial.

Holding

Yes, the jury instruction was erroneous because it did not accurately advise the jury of the law applicable to the defendant's plea of self-defense.

Key Quotes

“The court further instructs you that before a person can avail himself of the defense that he used a deadly weapon in defense of his life, he must satisfy the jury that the defense was necessary at the time and that he did all he could to avoid it, and that it was necessary to protect his own life, or protect himself from great bodily harm, as would give him reasonable apprehension that his life was in imminent danger.”

This is the jury instruction that the appellant argued was erroneous.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was convicted in a criminal proceeding. The core issue on appeal was a jury instruction given by the trial court regarding the defense o…

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.

Topics
Self-Defense Jury Instruction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an adverse jury verdict in a criminal proceeding and final judgment and sentence thereon. The point relied on for reversal is as follows:

“Was it reversible error for the trial court in the instant case to give the following instruction to the jury: ‘The court further instructs you that before a person can avail himself of the defense that he used a deadly weapon in defense of his life, he must satisfy the jury that the defense was necessary at the time and that he did all he could to avoid it, and that it was necessary to protect his own life, or protect himself from great bodily harm, as would give him reasonable apprehension that his life was in imminent danger.’?”

It is apparent, under the authority of Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 So. 896, that the complained of instruction was erroneous and did not accurately advise the jury of the law applicable to the defendant’s plea of self-defense. Therefore, the judgment and sentence here under review is hereby reversed and this cause is returned to the trial court for purposes of a new trial.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
    …r reading of Lane v. State, supra, convinces us that Florida courts are in line with the majority holding, in essence, that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the state. See also, McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 576; Burnias v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 612. This standard broadly includes the requirement that the state prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We further agree with the Maine court that when the defen…
  • Burnias v. State, 190 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
    …would give him reasonable apprehension that his life was in imminent danger.” It is apparent, under the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 So. 896, and this court’s opinion in McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 576, that the complained of instruction is erroneous and prejudicial.1 Therefore, the verdict, adjudication and sentence here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial. Reversed and r…
  • State v. McDaniel, 188 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1966)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 179 So. 2d 576.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw