Rich v. State, 4D02-3588.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D02-3588.,4D02-3588. |
| Citation | 858 So.2d 1210 |
| Parties | Stanley RICH, 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.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse appellant's conviction for aggravated battery because the trial court negated appellant's self-defense claim by instructing the jury that the use of force was not justified if appellant was committing or attempting to commit aggravated battery. In Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we held that this instruction, which is based upon section 776.041, Florida Statutes (2002), was applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time. Giving this instruction where the only charge against the defendant is the aggravated battery, which also was the act that the defendant claimed was self-defense, would improperly negate the self-defense claim. See id. at 1266.
Although appellant did not object to this instruction, we hold that it is fundamental error. "An incorrect jury instruction on the defense of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force constitutes fundamental error if there is a reasonable possibility that the instruction may have led to the conviction." Thomas v. State, 831 So.2d 253, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citations omitted). We determined in Giles that this instruction was misleading, and it was reasonably possible that it contributed to Giles' conviction under circumstances similar to this case. 831 So.2d at 1266. In addition, we have held that fundamental error results where an inaccurate and misleading instruction negates a defendant's only defense. See Davis v. State, 804 So.2d 400, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. State
...in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), it concluded that the error was not harmless. The following year, in Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District also concluded that the trial court committed fundamental error when it gave the same instruction. In......
-
Martinez v. State
...5th DCA 2004); Zuniga v. State, 869 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Barnes v. State, 868 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Placing this requirement as a condition precedent for a finding of fu......
-
Sipple v. State
...890 So.2d 1115 (Fla.2004); Dunnaway v. State, 883 So.2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 891 So.2d 553 (Fla.2004); Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The reason it is erroneous to give the instruction in such ......
-
Sloss v. State
...890 So.2d 1115 (Fla.2004); Dunnaway v. State, 883 So.2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 891 So.2d 553 (Fla.2004); Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). See also York v. State, 891 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issue on d......
-
Avoiding fundamentally erroneous jury instructions: pointers for counsel in criminal trials and appeals.
...which was not harmless. (23) The Fourth District did not decide in Giles whether this error was fundamental, but held in Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210, 1210-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), that it was. After Giles and Rich, courts considering the forcible felony exception where defendants were cha......