Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

868 So. 2d 606

Docket No. 1D02-2781.

Barnes v. State

Shana Yvette BARNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 11, 2004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-03-11

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2015

12 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The instruction given improperly told the jury that the very act Giles sought to justify itself precluded a finding of justification. Essentially, the jury was instructed that 776.041(1) would apply to preclude a self-defense claim, when it is claimed that the acts with which the defendant is charged are themselves committed in appropriate self-defense. Thus, even if the jury found that Giles’ act of aggravated battery was committed in self-defense, then the use of force was not justifiable because the act itself is a forcible felony. This reading, however, is erroneous because the proper test for determining the applicability of the instruction is not whether the self-defense act itself could qualify as a forcible felony, but whether, at the time of the self-defense, the accused was engaged in a separate forcible felonious act.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 76 So. 3d 379 - Smith v. State

“More specifically, the forcible felony instruction is given in situations where the accused is charged with at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense as well as a separate forcible felony.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 928 So. 2d 368 - Grier v. State

Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 751 So. 2d 537 - Goodwin v. State · 576 So. 2d 1310 - Perkins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-03-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*607 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

¶2Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant, Shana Yvette Barnes, appeals her judgment and sentence for the crime of second-degree murder. Appellant raises five issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. We reverse appellant's seconddegree murder conviction and remand for a new trial because the jury instructions on the issue of self-defense were confusing, misleading, and erroneous.

¶5At the charge conference, the trial court granted appellant's request for a jury instruction on self-defense and, thus, instructed the jury on self-defense. However, over appellant's objection, the trial court also gave the State's requested instruction on the forcible felony exception to self-defense. The forcible felony instruction was based on section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (2002), which by its plain language indicates that it is only applicable under circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time. Giles v. State,831 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Perkins v. State,576 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1991)). The forcible felony instruction is normally given in situations where the accused is charged with at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense and a separate forcible felony. Giles,831 So.2d at 1265 (citing Marshall v. State,604 So.2d 799 (Fla.1992)). The trial court's instruction on the forcible felony exception to self-defense was erroneous because appellant was only charged with one forcible felony, the alleged second-degree murder, an act she claimed was done in self-defense. See Giles,831 So.2d at 1265. The effect of instructing the jury on the forcible felony exception to appellant's selfdefense *608 instruction was to negate appellant's only defense. See Giles,831 So.2d at 1265 ("The instruction given improperly told the jury that the very act Giles sought to justify itself precluded a finding of justification."); Rich v. State,858 So.2d 1210, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Giles).

¶6Although the State concedes on appeal that the instruction was erroneously given, the State argues that it was harmless error. However, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless as there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. See Williams v. State,863 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2003) (citing Goodwin v. State,751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio,491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)).

¶7REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

¶8WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

/868/so2d/606 · .json · Public domain