Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1401,92-1401 |
| Citation | 613 So.2d 530 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D377 Bryan MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Roberta G. Mandel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant Bryan Miller from a judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. The defendant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of non-deadly force [Fla.Std. Jury Instr. 3.04(e) ], and, instead, instructing the jury on the justifiable use of deadly force [Fla.Std. Jury Instr. 3.04(d) ]. We find no reversible error in this point and affirm.
At trial the state adduced evidence tending to show that the defendant pointed a gun at the complainant and pulled the trigger, resulting in a misfire, and that after the complainant fled, a shot was, in fact, fired by the defendant. The defendant testified at trial that he did not point his gun at the complainant, but instead fired a warning shot in the air when, he said, the complainant advanced on him with a stick. The defendant contends that he was therefore entitled to a jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force because his trial testimony supported this defense. We cannot agree because, simply stated, the defendant's testimony does not support a defense of justifiable use of non-deadly force, but, at best, only a defense of justifiable use of deadly force.
Firing a firearm in the air, even as a so-called "warning shot," constitutes as a matter of law the use of deadly force, that is, the use of a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm--and is not, as urged, the use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A firearm is, by definition, a deadly weapon which fires projectiles likely to cause death or great bodily harm; whenever it is fired in the vicinity of human beings, as here, there is real danger that the fired projectile may hit someone, even if not aimed at anyone, as such projectiles are quite capable of ricocheting off nearby objects and hitting people in the area. Consequently, no reversible error is presented in the refusal to give a jury instruction on the justifiable use of non-deadly force....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...an element of his offense, and the trial court, therefore, did not err in rejecting an instruction on self-defense. {¶ 67} As to Miller, 613 So.2d 530, it was a brief per curiam decision and did not address the same issues as the case before us. Furthermore, "no court in this state is bound......
-
Curington v. State, 96-2758
...he or she reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm. Miller v. State, 613 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Smiley v. State, 395 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The circumstances must be such that the defendant had cause to think l......
-
Marty v. State
...matter of established law, constitute deadly force. See Rivero v. State, 871 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ; cf. Miller v. State, 613 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (explaining that discharging a firearm in the air as a warning shot constitutes the use of deadly force). Although fire......
-
Wiggins v. State, 1D17-739
...to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive which is likely to cause death or great bodily injury."); Miller v. State , 613 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("A firearm is, by definition, a deadly weapon which fires projectiles likely to cause death or great bodily harm; ...."); Ri......