Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

921 So. 2d 852

Docket No. 2D04-5216.

Swanson v. State

John Glenn SWANSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-03-03

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2008

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use force.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 933 So. 2d 1155 - Martinez v. State

Relies on Zuniga v. State · 887 So. 2d 362 - Cleveland v. State · Velazquez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-03-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*853 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3KELLY, Judge.

¶4John Swanson, Jr., appeals from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We reverse because the jury instruction given on self-defense constituted fundamental error.

¶5Swanson committed the single act of aggravated battery and claimed self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury on the forcible felony exception to self-defense. The court told the jury that "the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find that John Swanson was attempting to commit, committing, or after escaping the commission of aggravated battery." This instruction, based on section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes (2003), "is applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another independent forcible felony at the time." Cleveland v. State,887 So.2d 362, 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

¶6Defense counsel did not object and, in fact, sought the erroneous instruction at trial. However, we are compelled to reverse because "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." Velazquez v. State,884 So.2d 377, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Zuniga v. State,869 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State,877 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

¶8ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

/921/so2d/852 · .json · Public domain