97 So. 3d 291
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Garrido appeals a conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm and a mandatory minimum 3-year sentence.
- He challenges four trial-court rulings regarding jury instructions and judgment of acquittal.
- R.D., a Broward Sheriff’s Office process server, attempted service at Garrido’s home; he carried a badge but could not disclose employment.
- Garrido produced a firearm during a confrontation; R.D. fled and alerted police, Garrido was arrested.
- Garrido’s version claimed he only displayed the gun to deter trespassers; the State’s version described a direct threat to back off the property.
- The court reversed on one issue (self-defense instruction) and affirmed the others, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the standard justifiable-use-of-force instructions were fundamental error | Garrido (defendant) contends the standard instruction improperly used ‘injury’ and violated Bassallo/Brown | Garrido argues the standard instruction misstates law for self-defense when no injury occurred | Fundamental error; standard instruction improper for self-defense when injury not alleged |
| Whether the defense-of-property instruction as modified was error | Garrido argues modifications misled jurors about defense to trespass | State contends modified instruction fairly stated law | No error; modifications reasonably conveyed law on non-deadly force in curtilage/real property |
| Whether the special instruction that pointing a firearm is non-deadly force should have been given | Garrido sought explicit guidance that pointing a firearm is non-deadly per se | Trial court correctly relied on standard instruction for force types | No error; standard instruction adequately covered theory andspecial instruction would mislead |
| Whether denial of judgment of acquittal was proper | R.D. trespass justification could negate need for force | Evidence showed Garrido’s belief and response were unlawful/unclear; jury could convict | Denied judgment of acquittal; sufficient evidence supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bassallo v. State, 46 So.3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard instruction inappropriate when injury not element of offense)
- Brown v. State, 59 So.3d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (injury language in instruction inappropriate where no injury shown)
- Cummings v. State, 648 So.2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (trial court must instruct fully and correctly on applicable law)
- Moore v. State, 903 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (prosecutor’s correct legal statements do not cure erroneous instruction by court)
- Polite v. State, 973 So.2d 1107 (Fla.2007) (ambiguity in statutory language can render standard instruction inadequate)
- Nash v. State, 374 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (unloaded gun can be deadly weapon; jury confusion concerns)
- Humphries v. State, 232 So.2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (deadly force concepts and weapon status considerations)
- Geffkin v. State, 820 So.2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reasonable belief questions are jury questions about force used)
- Stevens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla.2001) (special-instruction standards for jury-confusion analyses)
- Thompson v. State, 814 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (instruction adequacy can be satisfied without exact statutory language)