Valls v. State, 159 So. 3d 234

Valls had an oral month-to-month rental arrangement and paid $500 for occupancy beginning in August 2009; he retained a key and access to common areas.
After objections, the homeowner asked Valls to leave; he moved out but kept visiting to retrieve belongings and was later allowed back in on occasions despite the owner changing the locks.
On Sept. 7, 2009 Valls returned to the property with a loaded handgun to take revenge on the victim, John Purvis; an exchange of gunfire occurred in the driveway/yard, Purvis died, and Valls was wounded.
Valls was charged with first-degree murder and armed burglary; defense argued self-defense and that Valls had a right/license to be on the property (negating burglary).
The trial court refused to give paragraph three of Florida Standard Jury Instruction 13.1 (license/invitation or premises open to the public) and declined a defense-requested landlord-tenant instruction; the jury convicted and Valls received concurrent life sentences.
On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the deletion of paragraph three deprived Valls of a critical instruction tied to both the burglary element and his self-defense theory.

Issue	State's Argument	Valls' Argument	Held
Whether paragraph three of Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 13.1 (entry by license/invitation or premises open) was required	Omit paragraph three; existing instructions and a ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ charge cured any omission	Paragraph three was necessary because evidence supported a license/right to enter through the oral tenancy, prepaid rent, and homeowner access	Court held paragraph three should have been given; its deletion was reversible error
Whether defense evidence supported an instruction on a recognized defense theory (consent/license to enter)	Argued instruction not necessary or preserved; self-defense instructions sufficed	Evidence (rental agreement, key, entry by homeowner, testimony) supported consent/license defense, so instruction required	Court held evidence supported the defense and the instruction was required
Whether omission of the instruction affected self-defense availability	Argued self-defense instructions and other language cured any defect	Omission removed statutory bar analysis—burglary status affected availability of self-defense	Court held omission was prejudicial because license to enter was critical to both burglary and self-defense issues
Preservation of issue for appeal	Argued defense failed to preserve the claim	Defense made specific request for paragraph three at charge conference	Court found the request preserved the issue

Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (defendant entitled to instruction on legally recognized defense supported by evidence)
State v. Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982) (license or right to enter is defense to burglary)
State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983) (burglary instruction guidance regarding license/invitation)
Anderson v. State, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (renter-rights extend to persons renting premises)
Dreisch v. State, 436 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (instruction not required when no evidentiary support)
Bryant v. State, 102 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (consent to enter can negate burglary even when entry was forcible)
Ramirez v. State, 125 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (omission of critical instruction can deprive defendant of fair trial)