Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

884 So. 2d 377

Docket No. 2D03-5750.

Velazquez v. State

Nelson VELAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 10, 2004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-09-10

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2008

21 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find: 1. DAVID BROZEY was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of Murder — Second Degree. . . .”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Bertke v. State, 889 So. 2d 937 - Carter v. State

“essentially negates the defense and constitutes fundamental error when a defendant committed a single act and claimed self-defense.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Smith v. State, Swanson v. State

Relies on 831 So. 2d 1263 - Giles v. State · Zuniga v. State · 877 So. 2d 856 - Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-09-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Charles D. Peters, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard M. Fishkin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3NORTHCUTT, Judge.

¶4Nelson Velazquez appeals his conviction and life sentence for attempted second-degree murder. We reverse based on fundamental error in the jury instruction on self-defense.

¶5As part of the jury instruction on self-defense, the trial court gave an instruction on the forcible felony exception to self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury that "the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find: 1. Nelson M. Velazquez was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of Attempted Second Degree Murder with a Weapon." This instruction, based on section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (2002), "is applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time." Cleveland v. State,29 Fla. L. Weekly D1627, D1627, 2004 WL 1530876, ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Fla. 5th DCA July 9, 2004). Although defense counsel made no objection at trial, this court has held that the instruction essentially negates the defense and constitutes fundamental error when a defendant committed a single act and claimed self-defense. See Zuniga v. State,869 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State,877 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Giles v. State,831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We appreciate the State's *378 candor in briefing this issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

¶7SALCINES and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

/884/so2d/377 · .json · Public domain