Call us now:
A Critical Decision for All Florida Citizens Concerned with Due Process and Self-Defense Rights
In Smith v. State, Case No. 6D2023-2239, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed Corey Stephen Smith’s conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm causing great bodily harm. The Court’s decision underscores two core procedural protections guaranteed under Florida law: the right to present a complete defense—including self-defense instructions to a jury—and the right to have evidence admitted when it affects a defendant’s state of mind.
This ruling carries broad implications for every Floridian, reaffirming that criminal defendants are entitled to fair trial procedures and that juries—not judges—should weigh evidence when a plausible defense is raised.
Case Background: A Chaotic Encounter Between Neighbors
Smith, a long-time neighbor of the Stanley family, became involved in a late-night altercation after a social gathering at the Stanleys’ home. Following a verbal dispute and initial ejection from the property, Smith returned to retrieve his belongings. During the exchange, tensions escalated, and Smith fired a weapon, injuring one of the individuals. He was charged and later convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm, receiving a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years.
Smith asserted that he acted in self-defense, claiming he feared imminent great bodily harm, particularly from individuals who were physically larger than him and who, by some accounts, lunged at or surrounded him prior to the shooting.
Legal Errors: What Went Wrong at Trial
The appellate court identified two major legal errors by the trial court:
1. Denial of Jury Instruction on Self-Defense (Stand Your Ground)
Smith requested that the jury be instructed on Florida’s law of justifiable use of deadly force under § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2014), which includes the right to “stand your ground” if a person is in a place they have a right to be and is not engaged in criminal activity.
Despite testimonial evidence that Smith was told by others to come retrieve his belongings, the trial court refused to give this instruction—reasoning that Smith was not in a place he had a right to be and that, because Smith did not testify, there was no evidence of his state of mind.
However, the appellate court reaffirmed longstanding precedent: a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any valid legal defense if any evidence supports it—no matter how weak or circumstantial. See Wagers v. State, 199 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Espichan v. State, 391 So. 3d 653, 657 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).
Further, the court emphasized that self-defense need not be established solely through the defendant’s own testimony. It may arise through other witness statements, cross-examination, or circumstantial evidence. See Spurgeon v. State, 114 So. 3d 1042, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
“The trial court should not weigh the evidence… it is the jury’s function to determine that issue.” — Vila v. State, 74 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
2. Improper Exclusion of Verbal Threat as “Hearsay”
At trial, defense counsel attempted to introduce a statement made by one of the alleged victims—“I’m going to beat you up”—which Smith had heard prior to the shooting. The trial court excluded this statement as hearsay.
The appellate court found this to be a legal error. Statements offered not for their truth, but to show their effect on the listener (i.e., Smith’s fear or mental state), are not hearsay under Florida law. See § 90.801(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023); Blackwood v. State, 777 So. 2d 399, 407 (Fla. 2000).
In the self-defense context, prior threats are routinely admitted to show the defendant’s apprehension or belief in imminent danger. See Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Why This Decision Matters to All Floridians
This ruling is not just about Corey Smith—it’s about protecting constitutional rights at trial. The court’s reversal enforces two fundamental legal principles:
- The Right to Jury Instructions on Valid Defenses: A defendant must be permitted to argue a theory of defense supported by even slight evidence. This empowers juries to do their job.
- The Right to Present Relevant Evidence: Evidence that affects a defendant’s perception of danger is essential in a self-defense case. Excluding such evidence undermines fairness.
When these protections are ignored, wrongful convictions can result—and the burden falls not only on the individual, but on the integrity of the entire criminal justice system.
Key Takeaways for Florida Citizens
- Jury instructions must reflect any valid defense theory, including Stand Your Ground, when there’s any supporting evidence.
- A defendant does not need to testify to raise self-defense.
- Out-of-court statements are not hearsay if offered to show how they affected the listener’s state of mind.
- Trial courts must avoid substituting their judgment for that of a jury, especially in factual disputes.
- Failing to give a proper instruction on a defendant’s central defense is not harmless error.
Conclusion
The decision in Smith v. State reinforces vital trial rights that every Florida citizen should be aware of. It reminds us that criminal trials must be guided by fairness, not speculation or assumption. Defendants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the right to defend themselves, and the opportunity to present a full and fair case to a jury.
This ruling should be read not only by legal professionals but by any Floridian concerned with justice and civil liberties.
Citations:
- § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2014)
- § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (2023)
- Spurgeon v. State, 114 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Vila v. State, 74 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Wagers v. State, 199 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Blackwood v. State, 777 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2000)
If you have questions about your rights under Florida self-defense law or jury trial procedures, contact a qualified criminal defense attorney today.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.