PEDRO BURNIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court reversed a homicide conviction because the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding self-defense. The instruction improperly placed the burden on the defendant to prove the necessity of using a deadly weapon, which is contrary to established Florida law.
Yes, the jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. The appellate court held that the instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and misstated the law regarding self-defense.
“Gentlemen of the Jury, the Court 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 quote is the erroneous jury instruction that formed the basis of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of homicide. The sole issue on appeal concerned a jury instruction given by the trial court at the State's request. This i…
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 Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, by this appeal, seeks review of a guilty verdict, adjudication and sentence in a homicide case. The point relied on for appeal is error on the part of the trial court in giving an instruction requested by the State, which reads as follows :
“Gentlemen of the Jury, the Court 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 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 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)…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 defendant raises self-defense as an issue at trial it…
Authorities Cited
- Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1902)
- McDANIEL v. State, 179 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)