Call us now:
No you don’t have to admit to committing a battery before you can argue self defense from the evidence presented, yes inconsistent defenses are allowed as long as they don’t disprove each other, and no you don’t give up Constitutional rights by arguing self-defense. I know this may seem common sense, but that didn’t stop a Florida Court from robbing a Florida citizen of a fair trial, requiring an appellate Court to get involved and make these principles clear.
In Ortiz v. State, the Florida appellate court (6th DCA) reversed the conviction of Maria D. Ortiz, who had been found guilty of battery on a person 65 years of age or older. The reversal was not about whether the altercation occurred but about a fundamental constitutional error during trial: the trial court improperly forced Ortiz’s lawyer to concede that she had committed a battery before allowing the jury to be instructed on self-defense.
This ruling is a reminder of the limits of judicial authority, the rights of criminal defendants and Florida citizens, and the importance of protecting due process at every level.
Background of the Case
The incident arose from an argument between Ortiz and her landlord, Dorothy Graham, a 76-year-old woman. Testimony showed conflicting accounts of whether Ortiz initiated a battery in the hallway of a rental house or whether the altercation only occurred later on the porch. Graham alleged Ortiz struck her multiple times and tried to push her over the porch railing. Other witnesses described both women struggling with each other. Ortiz, in her statements to law enforcement, indicated that Graham put her hands on her first, prompting a defensive response.
The State charged Ortiz with one count of battery on a person 65 years of age or older under section 784.08, Florida Statutes. At trial, defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed on self-defense. Despite testimony and body-camera evidence supporting the claim, the trial judge ruled that such an instruction would only be given if Ortiz affirmatively conceded during closing argument that a battery had occurred. Ultimately, counsel was forced to admit that “it’s a battery” to obtain the instruction—removing from the jury the opportunity to weigh conflicting versions of events.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
1. Right to Jury Instructions on a Theory of Defense
Florida law is clear: a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how weak or flimsy. See Calkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Spurgeon v. State, 114 So. 3d 1042, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The appellate court emphasized that weighing the quality of the evidence is not the judge’s role—that task belongs solely to the jury. See Smith v. State, No. 6D23-2239, 2025 WL 1786726, at *4 (Fla. 6th DCA June 27, 2025).
Here, Ortiz’s own statements, corroborated in part by a witness, provided sufficient evidence of self-defense. That should have been enough to require the instruction.
This point of law is crucial, and it deserves more discussion. Florida law sets a deliberately low threshold for giving a self-defense instruction. The trial judge may not weigh credibility or persuasiveness; if the record contains any evidence supporting self-defense, the jury must be instructed and allowed to decide the issue.
A defendant can obtain the instruction without taking the stand. Courts repeatedly hold that the defense may rely on the defendant’s recorded or written statements admitted through State witnesses, or other non-testimonial proof (circumstantial evidence). From Spurgeon v State:
Additionally, a defendant is not required to testify at trial to receive a jury instruction on self-defense. Sipple, 972 So.2d at 915. A defendant’s statements admitted into evidence at trial may be sufficient evidence for a self-defense instruction. Id. The cross-examination of State witnesses can also support a claim of self-defense. Id. at 916. Finally, if a jury can reasonably infer from circumstantial evidence presented at trial that the defendant had the state of mind necessary for self-defense, then the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. Johnson v. State, 634 So.2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
You can establish the self-defense theory entirely through cross: eliciting that the alleged victim initiated contact, closed distance, grabbed, struck, or otherwise acted in a way that could reasonably prompt defensive force. ,Jurors may infer the defendant’s defensive state of mind from surrounding facts—you do not need a direct “I feared for my safety” statement.
In fact, even “silent aggressive behavior” can be enough for a self defense instruction. See Radler v State (4th DCA 2020)
2. Inconsistent Defenses Are Permissible
The trial court insisted Ortiz could not both argue that the State failed to prove certain elements of the crime (e.g., whether a hallway battery occurred) and argue self-defense as to the porch incident. The appellate court disagreed. Florida courts allow inconsistent defenses so long as one theory does not necessarily disprove the other. See Goode v. State, 856 So. 2d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
In Ortiz’s case, there were two separate alleged batteries—the hallway and the porch. Defense counsel’s approach (arguing the State had not proven the hallway incident while asserting self-defense on the porch) was not contradictory and should have been permitted.
3. Improper Shift of the Burden of Proof
Perhaps most importantly, the court held that requiring Ortiz to concede that the State had proven the elements of battery undermined her constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. (Due Process) The State always bears the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362 (1970); State v. Cohen, 568 So. 2d 49, 51 (Fla. 1990). Forcing a defendant to admit guilt to obtain a lawful instruction turned this principle upside down.
Why This Case Matters
The reversal in Ortiz is more than just a technical ruling—it underscores fundamental protections for every Floridian accused of a crime:
- Judges cannot weigh evidence when deciding whether a jury gets to hear a defense instruction.
- Defendants may argue inconsistent defenses as long as they do not logically disprove one another.
- The burden of proof remains on the State, and courts cannot compel a defendant to concede guilt to preserve the right to present a defense.
Conclusion
The appellate court’s decision to reverse Ortiz’s conviction and remand for a new trial reaffirms critical rights in Florida’s criminal justice system. Self-defense is one of the most important protections under Florida law, and defendants are entitled to a fair chance to have the jury consider it whenever there is any evidence in support. Judges may not strip away this right by forcing concessions or limiting legitimate trial strategy.
For anyone facing criminal charges in Florida—particularly in cases involving self-defense—the Ortiz decision highlights why it is vital to have an experienced defense attorney who understands both the substantive law and the procedural safeguards designed to protect your constitutional rights.
Key Citations:
- Calkins v. State, 170 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Spurgeon v. State, 114 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Goode v. State, 856 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Smith v. State, No. 6D23-2239, 2025 WL 1786726 (Fla. 6th DCA June 27, 2025)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
- State v. Cohen, 568 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1990
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford 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.