Call us now:
In a recent and significant decision, a Florida appellate court reversed a defendant’s conviction of manslaughter with a firearm because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the forcible felony self-defense justification, despite substantial evidence supporting it. The court held that the failure to give this instruction was not only erroneous but also prejudicial, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings. This case serves as a powerful reminder of how critical proper jury instructions are in criminal trials, especially when self-defense is at issue. Lawson v State – 4th DCA 7/23/2025
Facts of the Case
The incident began when the defendant and his girlfriend encountered the girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend (the “victim”) in a parking lot. The defendant had prior knowledge of the victim’s violent tendencies, including explicit threats such as, “Who[m]ever I catch you with I’m gonna f**k you and him up.
When the victim approached and then struck the girlfriend in the face with significant force, the defendant—who had already chambered his firearm due to the perceived threat—shot the victim, believing he was next. The defense argued that this act of force was justified to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony, namely aggravated battery under § 784.045(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2023).
Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the defense’s request to include the forcible felony instruction under § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2023), and instead limited the jury instruction to the use of deadly force only if the defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter with a firearm, not second-degree murder as charged.
Legal Framework
Under Florida law:
“A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”
— § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added)
A forcible felony is defined to include aggravated battery.
— § 776.08, Fla. Stat. (2023)
Aggravated battery occurs when a person “[i]ntentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.”
— § 784.045(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2023)
Florida precedent also provides that:
“A defendant is entitled to have a jury instruction on any valid defense supported by the evidence.”
— Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322, 330 (Fla. 2002); citing State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991)
And most recently, the Sixth DCA reiterated that:
“[A] jury instruction on self-defense is required if the defense is suggested by the evidence presented.”
— Smith v. State, No. 6D2023-2239, 2025 WL 1786726, at *4 (Fla. 6th DCA June 27, 2025), quoting Elder v. State, 296 So. 3d 440, 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
The appellate court found that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the forcible felony theory of self-defense. Key to the ruling was the finding that the defendant presented competent, substantial evidence that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated battery.
This includes:
- The victim’s prior threats and violent behavior
- The aggressive approach and verbal threat just before the altercation
- The video showing the victim physically attacking the girlfriend
- The victim’s close proximity and lack of retreat before being shot
Critically, the appellate court held that this instructional error was not harmless:
“If the jury had been given the forcible felony instruction, a reasonable possibility exists that the jury would have acquitted him completely.”
— citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986)
The jury’s conviction of the lesser offense (manslaughter) indicated some belief that the defendant was partially justified, and thus the omission of the instruction likely influenced the outcome.
Key Takeaways for Criminal Defense Practice
- Forcible Felony Jury Instructions Are Crucial: When evidence supports the theory that deadly force was used to prevent a forcible felony, such as aggravated battery or aggravated stalking, the defense is entitled to the corresponding jury instruction. Denial of that right can result in reversible error.
- Jury Instruction Errors Are Not Always Harmless: Courts apply the DiGuilio harmless error standard, and if there’s any reasonable possibility the error affected the verdict, reversal is required.
- Evidence of Prior Threats Matters: A victim’s prior threats, stalking behavior, and violent tendencies can significantly support a defendant’s reasonable belief of imminent danger or forcible felony, especially when combined with sudden or aggressive actions.
- Trial Strategy Must Preserve Rights: Defense counsel must properly request and argue for every applicable justification instruction to preserve the issue for appeal.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of tailoring jury instructions to the specific facts and defenses raised by the evidence. The failure to do so—especially when a justification defense is viable—can mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Florida criminal defense attorneys should be prepared to assert every viable statutory defense and ensure that jurors are properly instructed on the law that applies to their client’s case.
For individuals charged with crimes involving self-defense, understanding your legal rights—including the right to claim justification under the forcible felony exception—is essential. The justice system demands that juries hear all relevant legal theories supported by the evidence. When courts fail to honor that obligation, justice demands reversal.
References:
- § 776.012(2), Fla. Stat. (2023)
- § 776.08, Fla. Stat. (2023)
- § 784.045(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2023)
- Smith v. State, No. 6D2023-2239, 2025 WL 1786726 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991)
- Elder v. State, 296 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)4
- Lawson v State – 4th DCA 7/23/2025
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges in Florida and believes self-defense may apply, it is critical to consult a knowledgeable and experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights.
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.