Federic v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Federic v. State

909 So. 2d 458, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13282, 2005 WL 2016398

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-1098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 909 So. 2d 458 (Federic v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federic v. State, 909 So. 2d 458, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13282, 2005 WL 2016398 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, J.

Jean Federic appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We reverse and remand for a new trial, because the trial court reversibly erred in instructing the jury that appellant was not justified in the use of force if he was “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.” This portion of the instruction on the defense of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force was not applicable in this case because appellant was charged only with the forcible felony of aggravated battery; appellant was not charged with committing a separate aggravated battery. Thus, the instruction improperly negated appellant’s self-defense claim. See Craven v. State, 908 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

We affirm as to all other issues raised by appellant.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.

WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TAYLOR, J.

Jean Federic appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We reverse and remand for a new trial, because the trial court reversibly erred in instructing the jury that appellant was not justified in the use of force if he was “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.” This portion of the instruction on the defense of justifiable use of deadly and non-deadly force was not applicable in this case because appellant was charged only with the forcible felony of aggravated battery; appellant was not charged with committing a separate aggravated battery. Thus, the instruction improperly negated appellant’s self-defense claim. See Craven v. State, 908 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Rich v. State, 858 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

We affirm as to all other issues raised by appellant.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.

WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 458, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13282, 2005 WL 2016398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federic-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack