Hardison v. State, 138 So. 3d 1130

Hardison appeals his second-degree murder conviction and sentence on a claim of fundamental error in the jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force.
The instruction was allegedly inconsistent with the law because it appeared to limit the defense to those not engaged in unlawful activity.
On the date of the shooting, Hardison and others waited outside while Banks approached; a struggle over a gun occurred and Banks, who was unarmed, was shot.
The court instructed the jury with the standard 3.6(f) deadly-force instruction and, at defense counsel’s request, added a Marrero-based modification to the unlawful-activity portion.
Hardison testified as a felon in possession of a firearm, and the court’s full instruction emphasized self-defense standards and non-retreat principles under 776.012 and 776.013.
The intermediate appellate court affirmed, holding there was no fundamental error despite the modification, and the evidence supported the jury’s self-defense determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction on justifiable deadly force contained fundamental error	Hardison	Hardison	No fundamental error
Whether the Marrero-based modification rendered the instruction improper	Hardison	Hardison	No fundamental error
Whether the evidence supported self-defense given felon-in-possession status	Hardison	Hardison	Evidence supported self-defense; instruction adequate

Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (discusses 776.013(3) vs 776.012(1) scope of stand-your-ground immunity)
Wonder v. State, 128 So.3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (stand-your-ground immunity not limited by unlawful activity for 776.012(1) analysis)
Marrero v. State, 516 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (elements of the necessity/justification defense for felon in possession of a firearm)
Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (approach to evaluating fundamental error in jury instructions)