Forshee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forshee v. State

695 So. 2d 951, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7754, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1662

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3093

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 951 (Forshee 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

Forshee v. State, 695 So. 2d 951, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7754, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1662 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based on the state’s proper confession of error on defendant’s points on appeal, we reverse the judgment of conviction for second degree murder, vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a new trial. First, the court erred in giving a Marrero¹ instruction rather than instructing the jury on justifiable use of deadly force, where, as here, defendant was not charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Arboleda v. State, 645 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Second, the trial court erred in permitting the state to continue to cross examine defendant concerning the nature of his prior convictions after defendant admitted the prior convictions. See Gore v. State, 573 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1991). Lastly, the court erred in failing to follow the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 before holding defendant in contempt. See Davis v. State, 575 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based on the state’s proper confession of error on defendant’s points on appeal, we reverse the judgment of conviction for second degree murder, vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a new trial. First, the court erred in giving a Marrero¹ instruction rather than instructing the jury on justifiable use of deadly force, where, as here, defendant was not charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Arboleda v. State, 645 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wilt v. State, 410 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Second, the trial court erred in permitting the state to continue to cross examine defendant concerning the nature of his prior convictions after defendant admitted the prior convictions. See Gore v. State, 573 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1991). Lastly, the court erred in failing to follow the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 before holding defendant in contempt. See Davis v. State, 575 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 951, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7754, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forshee-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack