Giles v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-3850.,4D01-3850. |
| Citation | 831 So.2d 1263 |
| Parties | Lamonda D. GILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse Giles' aggravated battery conviction, as the wording of a self-defense jury instruction was misleading.
Giles and the victim, Leon White, were engaged in a poker game when White became frustrated, stood up, and threw his cards in towards Giles. Giles stood up and struck White in the eye. After a brief struggle, they went outside and continued arguing. White picked up a beer bottle and threw it, but did not hit Giles. A witness then saw Giles go down the street and pick up a brick. White's cousin attempted to stand in between the two, but Giles swung around her and hit White in the mouth with the brick.
At the charge conference, it was agreed that the jury would be instructed on both the defenses of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force. Over defense objection, the trial court included an instruction that read:
The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find that the defendant was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.
The jury was, thus, instructed in the following manner concerning self-defense:
The instruction was erroneous. A court's decision to give a particular instruction should not be reversed "unless the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice or the instruction was reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury." Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber, 745 So.2d 968, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The jury instruction in this case falls into the latter category.
In Mogavero v. State, 744 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we recognized that a trial court "should not give instructions which are confusing, contradictory, or misleading." Where an instruction is confusing or misleading, prejudicial error occurs where the jury might reasonably have been misled. Wadman v. State, 750 So.2d 655, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Here, the instruction was misleading and confusing such that the effect was to negate Giles' only defense to the charge of aggravated battery. See Davis v. State, 804 So.2d 400, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
(recognizing that it is fundamental error to give an inaccurate and misleading instruction where the effect of that instruction is to negate a defendant's only defense); Harris v. State, 570 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(recognizing it to be fundamental that trial court should give a complete and accurate instruction so as not to negate the defendant's theory of defense).
The instruction was based on section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (2002), which provides:
Although a "forcible felony" as used in the statute includes an aggravated battery, see § 776.08, Fla. Stat., the plain language of section 776.041 indicates that it is applicable only under circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another, independent "forcible felony" at the time. See Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1991)
( that cocaine trafficking was not forcible felony so as to preclude defense of self-defense when killing occurred during attempt to traffic in cocaine). This case was not one where the alleged aggravated battery occurred while Giles was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of some other independent forcible felony. The instruction is normally given in situations where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claxton v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:12-cv-804-J-34JRK
...at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense and a separate forcible felony." Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449, 457 (Fla. 2008) ("[I]t is error for a trial court to read the forcible-felony i......
-
Fana v. Sec'y
...Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to relief on the basis of ground 7(B). Petitioner relies heavily upon the case Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) to support his claim. In Giles, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. Id. The jury was instructed on both ......
-
Martinez v. State
...an Aggravated Battery . . . . We agree that to give this instruction absent an independent forcible felony is error. Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See also Carter v. State, 889 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 903 So.2d 190 (Fla.2005); Cleveland v. State, ......
-
Fana v. Sec'y, DOC, Case No. 3:11-cv-311-J-39JRK
...Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to relief on the basis of ground 7(B). Petitioner relies heavily upon the case Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) to support his claim. In Giles, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. Id. Thejury was instructed on both j......
-
Avoiding fundamentally erroneous jury instructions: pointers for counsel in criminal trials and appeals.
...affirmative defense instruction involves the forcible felony exception to self-defense. This issue originates from Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in which the court found the self-defense instruction was misleading. Giles claimed self-defense and received instruc......