ELIZABETH WATKINS, 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.
Elizabeth Watkins appeals her conviction for second-degree murder in the shooting death of her common-law husband in their shared home. The court reverses her conviction and orders a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat when defending oneself in one's own home, even when the attacker also resides there.
The trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat. A person attacked in their own home is not required to retreat, and this protection applies regardless of whether the assailant also resides in the same dwelling. This doctrine must be included in self-defense instructions, and the error here was prejudicial.
“A person's home is his or her ultimate sanctuary.”
Establishes the foundational principle that the home receives special legal protection in self-defense law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatkins shot and killed her common-law husband with his own pistol in their shared dwelling. According to her testimony, she fired as he advanced towa…
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 Duty To Retreat cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Elizabeth Watkins, who is hereafter referred to as the defendant, has perfected her appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed upon her for the offense of murder in the second degree, and she assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to give the jury a requested charge relating to her right of non-necessity of retreat when attacked in her home. The defendant relies upon Hedges v. State, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 824, as authority for the requested charge.
*313The record reveals that the defendant shot and killed her common-law husband with his pistol. The scene of the occurrence was the dwelling in which they resided. It was the defendant’s testimony that she shot her husband as he advanced upon her with his hand in his pocket where he usually kept his knife; that he had been out all night drinking, and upon returning home was angry with her for hiding his pistol. It was her testimony that previously her husband had, when drinking, cut her with his knife and had also threatened her with the pistol.
The trial court charged the jury the law relating generally to self-defense but declined to give a charge as to the rule of non-necessity of retreat when attacked in one’s own home.
In Pell v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110, it was held that such doctrine of non-necessity of retreat is applicable when one is attacked in his own home by a trespasser, and the later case of Hedges v. State, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 824, establishes that such doctrine must be included in the court’s instruction on self-defense where the deceased was an invitee in defendant’s home.
Although the state readily admits that it would have been beneficial to the defendant had the trial court included in the jury instruction the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat, the state takes the position that the doctrine does not apply to a situation where both parties are on the premises in question with equal authority and control. With this position we do not agree. A person’s home is his or her ultimate sanctuary. Hedges v. State, supra.
The Supreme Court of Alabama in Baugh v. State, 1927, 215 Ala. 619, 112 So. 157, text 159, held:
“A person attacked in his own dwelling, under conditions otherwise entitling him to strike in self-defense, is not required to retreat although his assailant also resides in the same dwelling. There is no place to which the law requires him to retreat. * * * ”
See also 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 130 c, page 1015.
The trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat, and such error was prejudicial.
Other assignments of error raised by the defendant have been considered and found to be without merit.
The judgment and sentence imposed is reversed with direction to grant defendant a new trial.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Redondo v. State, 380 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…a. 650, 665, 122 So. 110, 116 (1929). The failure to give such an instruction constitutes, in our view, reversible error in this cause which requires the grant of a new trial upon remand. Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965); Watkins v. State, 197 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). III As to the state’s cross-appeal, we have no difficulty in reversing the arrest of judgment on the firearm conviction. Although this conviction is technically inconsistent with the battery conviction, such inconsistency can…
-
State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982)…the home is not available when the attacker “does not enter as a trespasser.” 172 So. 2d at 826 (emphasis added). We were not, however, confronted with nor did we resolve the question now presented for our resolution. Although in Watkins v. State, 197 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), the Fourth District decided that the trial court had erred in refusing to charge the jury on the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat where the defendant killed her common-law husband in the dwelling in which they both resided,…1 / 2
-
State v. Bobbitt, 389 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…lice unfortunately found the line was busy. . The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Conner v. State, 361 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied 368 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1979), receding from its prior decision in Watkins v. State, 197 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), is apparently to the contrary and would exclude the exception to the duty to retreat in cases where both the accused and the assailant are legal occupants of the premises. . State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E. 2d 291, 292 (…
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
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650 (Fla. 1929)