266 So. 3d 203
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim physically fought Defendant’s adult son after seeing him allegedly try to break into the victim’s work trailer; the victim put the son in a chokehold.
- Defendant intervened and bit off part of the victim’s ear; State charged Defendant with aggravated battery and the son with attempted burglary of a conveyance with battery. Defendant was not charged as a principal to the burglary.
- At trial Defendant admitted the battery but invoked defense of another as her sole affirmative defense; jury was instructed on non-deadly and deadly force in defense of another.
- The trial court also gave the statutory forcible-felony exception instruction, stating Defendant’s force was unjustified if the jury found the son was committing or attempting burglary; defense counsel did not object at trial.
- Jury convicted Defendant of the lesser-included felony battery and she was sentenced to five years; on appeal she challenged the forcible-felony instruction (and other issues, which the court affirmed).
- Fourth District reversed, holding the forcible-felony instruction was fundamental error because it shifted focus from Defendant’s conduct/knowledge to the son’s conduct and negated her sole defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving the forcible-felony exception to the jury was proper when Defendant asserted defense of another but was not charged with an independent forcible felony | The State: the statute’s plain language applies the exception to the justifications in the chapter, including defense of another, so the exception should bar the defense if the person defended was committing a forcible felony | Grant: the exception applies only if the person asserting the defense (the defendant) was attempting or committing an independent forcible felony; the instruction here focused on the son, not Defendant, and thus misstates the law | Reversed: instruction was fundamental error because it shifted focus to the son’s conduct, effectively negated Defendant’s sole defense, and vitiated trial fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. State, 141 So. 3d 651 (discusses standard for jury-instruction review and preserved error)
- Krause v. State, 98 So. 3d 71 (instruction error negating defense is fundamental)
- Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379 (standard for reviewing claims of fundamental error; instruction that ‘guts’ defense is reversible)
- Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (defense of another is an affirmative defense like self-defense)
- Keyes v. State, 804 So. 2d 373 (self-defense and defense of another involve admission-and-avoidance)
- Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (forcible-felony exception applies only when the person claiming self-defense is engaged in an independent forcible felony)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (error to give forcible-felony instruction where defendant not charged with independent forcible felony)
- Byrd v. State, 858 So. 2d 343 (improper instruction can shift jury focus away from defendant’s conduct)
- Vowels v. State, 32 So. 3d 720 (erroneous forcible-felony instruction can vitiate trial fairness)
- Burris v. State, 875 So. 2d 408 (courts must follow plain statutory language)
- State v. Cook, 515 S.E.2d 127 (discusses common-law alter ego rule and its effect on defender liability)