ROBERT WARD BACOM, 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.
Bacom appeals his manslaughter conviction and ten-year sentence, arguing insufficient evidence supported the conviction when he used force in self-defense against an unprovoked attacker in a position where he could not reasonably escape. The court reverses, finding the evidence inadequate to support conviction given Bacom's lack of provocation, his reasonable defensive response, and his lawful right to remain in the location.
The court holds that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Bacom did nothing to provoke the decedent, took no affirmative action except to protect himself in a place where he had a right to be and from which he could not reasonably extricate himself, and his defense did not exceed what was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
[1] A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense when facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, especially when unable to retreat.
[2] A person may use reasonable force to defend themselves in a place where they have a right to be and cannot reasonably extricate themselves from a confrontation.
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“The record is clear that appellant did nothing to provoke the decedent and took no affirmative action except to protect himself in a place where he had a right to be and from whence he could not reasonably extricate himself.”
Establishes the factual foundation for self-defense claim—no provocation, lawful location, inability to escape
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Bacom, partially disabled by arthritis, was seated at a bar hemmed in by a wall and bar counter when the decedent, an alleged karate expert,…
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 Reasonable Force cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals his conviction of manslaughter and resulting ten year sentence. The evidence adduced by the State 'reveals that while appellant, partially disabled by arthritis, sat hemmed in by the wall to his back and a bar to his side, he was approached by the decedent, an alleged karate expert, who invited, without provocation, appellant outside to fight. Appellant protested that he wanted no fight and urged the decedent to leave him alone. The decedent thereupon went outside from whence he promptly returned, approaching appellant, who was not in a position to extricate himself, taking off his (the decedent’s) glasses as he did so. As the decedent continued his charge appellant, who had taken no provocative action, stabbed or cut the decedent several times with a knife. The decedent thereafter died of bronchial pneumonia which resulted from the stab wounds and the surgery relating thereto.
The sole issue for our resolution relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction of appellant, who asserted as defenses justifiable homicide and self defense.
The record is clear that appellant did nothing to provoke the decedent and took no affirmative action except to protect himself in a place where he had a right to be and from whence he could not reasonably extricate himself. Had he left the premises when the decedent went outside following his initial invitation to fight, as the State claims he should have, then such action might well have been interpreted by the decedent as an affirmative response to the invitation. Instead, appellant remained in what appeared to be a position of safety, ignoring the belligerent invitations to fight cast at him by the decedent. In short, the evidence fails to reveal that appellant did anything other than that which should be expected of any reasonable, intelligent, prudent person under the circumstances. There is no evidence that his defense of himself exceeded that reasonably called for by the situation in which he found himself but which he did not create.
The evidence adduced by the State was insufficient to support the conviction and the learned trial judge erred in not granting appellant’s motion for a directed verdict. (See Bolin v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 297 So. 2d 317; Harris v. State, Fla.App.2nd 1958, 104 So. 2d 739 and Bozeman v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1932, 106 Fla. 270, 143 So. 236.)
Reversed and remanded with directions that appellant be discharged.
MILLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory Jack Brown, Jr. v. State, 454 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…coming at her she removed a pistol from her pocketbook and fired at the victim, killing him. The court held that the uncontroverted evidence clearly demonstrated that defendant acted in self-defense, and reversed her conviction. In Bacom v. State, 317 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1st DCA 1975) the court reviewed the evidence resulting in a manslaughter conviction, and concluded that the defendant had not provoked the altercation and had lawfully protected himself when he stabbed the victim who came at him wanting to fig…
-
Jenkins v. State, 942 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…CA 1989); Hernandez Ramos v. [*916] State, 496 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 550 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Brown v. State, 454 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Diaz v. State, 387 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Bacom v. State, 317 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); see also Fowler v. State, 921 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In Thompson, 552 So. 2d 264, this court reversed a conviction for aggravated battery when the defendant, who had a gun in his pocket, tried to stop a fight and was at…
-
Patry Ann Andrews v. State, 577 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…. 2d 362, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Diaz v. State, 387 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ferguson v. State, 379 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McKnight v. State, 341 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977); Bacom v. State, 317 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In Diaz, supra at 980, wherein the defendant was the only witness to the killing, the court ruled: The defendant’s direct testimony concerning the victim’s threats and his menacing approach together with the defendant’s assert…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Harris v. State, 104 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Bozeman v. State, 106 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1932)