RENE ST. PIERRE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
228 So. 3d 583
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Rene St. Pierre and a neighbor (victim) were involved in a physical altercation after their dogs fought in a shared backyard; the encounter continued into or near the neighbor’s doorway/apartment.
- Appellant did not testify; his recorded police interview included statements that he acted in self-defense and that the fight began outside and “led back in” to the doorway/apartment.
- Charged with burglary of a dwelling (Count I) and misdemeanor battery (Count II). Defense requested self-defense instructions for both counts, arguing the acts were part of a single transaction and any entry was made while defending himself.
- Trial court gave the standard self-defense instruction for battery but refused any self-defense instruction for the burglary count, ruling self-defense could not excuse unlawful entry.
- Jury rejected self-defense for battery and convicted on both counts; appellant appealed, arguing the refusal to give the self-defense instruction on burglary was reversible error and raising ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Fourth District reversed and remanded for retrial on the ground that the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction on the burglary count where the burglary and battery were factually intertwined; the court declined to decide the ineffective-assistance claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | St. Pierre's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a self-defense instruction was required for the burglary charge | The burglary and battery arose from the same transaction; entry into apartment occurred while defending himself, so jury should be instructed on self-defense for burglary | Self-defense not available to justify burglary; instruction for battery suffices; no self-defense for pursuit/entry | Reversed: trial court erred; self-defense instruction should have been given for burglary where offenses were inextricably intertwined |
| Whether failure to give self-defense on burglary was harmless error given battery instruction | Error not harmless; jury may have rejected self-defense on battery due to flaws and thus been foreclosed from assessing burglary in light of self-defense | Argues battery instruction protected the error as harmless; prior authority supports harmlessness in some cases | Held not harmless here because jury may have rejected self-defense on battery due to instructional flaws; state didn’t meet harmless-error burden |
| Whether the battery self-defense instruction (including "no duty to retreat" and punctuation error) was fundamentally erroneous | Instruction imposed extra burden and included confusing comma that could imply necessity of deadly force and duty-to-retreat issues | The instruction was a standard statutory form and not fundamentally erroneous | Court found errors in battery instruction but not fundamental error; considered them in harmless-error analysis for burglary instruction |
| Ineffective-assistance claims for counsel’s failure to object to instructions and opinion evidence | Appellant asserted counsel was ineffective on the face of the record | State urged issues were preserved/waived or strategic | Court affirmed without comment on those claims for direct appeal and declined to address ineffectiveness on the merits; left for collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. State, 937 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (trial court must give self-defense instruction if any evidence supports defendant’s theory; court may not weigh evidence)
- Pitts v. State, 989 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (self-defense instruction required where battery and entry were part of same defensive act)
- Garramone v. State, 636 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (any evidence of self-defense of sufficient character requires jury instruction; jury decides credibility)
- Calkins v. State, 170 So.3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (court erred by weighing evidence and refusing a self-defense instruction)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (state bears burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict)
- Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2001) (special instruction must be correct statement of law and not misleading)