effect of the erroneous instruction in Florida

2016If after considering "the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel," it appears that "the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant." Garrett v. State, 148 So. 3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), respectively), review dismissed, 192 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 2016).

2016The appellate court must consider “the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel.” Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), review dismissed, 192 So.3d 470 (Fla.2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)).

2024According to the Florida Supreme Court, a trial court commits per se error when it erroneously instructs a jury prior to deliberations that it cannot have any testimony read back, “because it is impossible to determine the effect of the erroneous instruction on the jury without engaging in speculation, and thus a reviewing court is unable to conduct a harmless error analysis.” Johnson v. State, 53 So. 3d 1003, 1005 (Fla. 2010).

2022In Johnson, id. at 1006 , we found that “when a judge erroneously instructs a jury that it may not request to have testimony read back . . . it is impossible to determine the effect of the erroneous instruction on the jury” because we cannot guess with any accuracy when the jury would have made such a request.

2023When determining whether a mistaken instruction constitutes fundamental error, "we 'must consider "the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel." ' " Id. (quoting Dooley v. State, 206 So. 3d 87, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)).

2016Even when self-defense is the defendant’s sole defense at trial, “[t]o determine whether fundamental error occurred in the court’s instruction to the jury, we must consider ‘the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel’ ” Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)), review dismissed, 192 So.3d 470 (Fla.2016); see also Dooley v. State, 206 So.3d 87 , 2016 WL 6066312 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 14, 2016).

2016If after considering “the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel,” it appears that “the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), respectively), review dismissed, 192 So.3d 470 (Fla.2016).

2016If after considering "the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel," it appears that "the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant." Garrett v. State, 148 So. 3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), respectively), review dismissed, 192 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 2016).

2016If after considering "the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel," it appears that "the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant." Garrett v. State, 148 So. 3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), respectively), review dismissed, 192 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 2016).

2016The appellate court must consider “the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel.” Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), review dismissed, 192 So.3d 470 (Fla.2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 379, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)).

2026This is consistent with Martinez, which evaluated fundamental error based on a "review of the complete record," and which concluded that no fundamental error occurred where the defendant's claim of self-defense was "extremely weak" and was not his only, or even his primary, defense at trial. 981 So. 2d at 455–56.

2023When determining whether a mistaken instruction constitutes fundamental error, "we 'must consider "the effect of the erroneous instruction in the context of the other instructions given, the evidence adduced in the case, and the arguments and trial strategies of counsel." ' " Id. (quoting Dooley v. State, 206 So. 3d 87, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)).

2023Further, "[w]here self-defense is 'the defendant's 7 primary defense . . . the evidence [cannot] be viewed as "extremely weak." ' " Peruchi v. State, 317 So. 3d 1262 , 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (second alternation in original) (quoting Crimins v. State, 113 So. 3d 945, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

2019Hardison v. State, 138 So. 3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Hunter v. State, 8 So. 3d 1052 , 8 1070 (Fla. 2008) (considering the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the unpreserved error in the jury instructions was fundamental). “[T]he fundamental error doctrine ‘should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.’” Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449, 455 (Fla. 2008) (citation omitted).

2019Hardison v. State, 138 So. 3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Hunter v. State, 8 So. 3d 1052 , 8 1070 (Fla. 2008) (considering the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the unpreserved error in the jury instructions was fundamental). “[T]he fundamental error doctrine ‘should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.’” Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449, 455 (Fla. 2008) (citation omitted).

2011See Garzon v. State, 939 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008); Prudent v. State, 974 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

2011See Garzon v. State, 939 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008); Prudent v. State, 974 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

2011See Garzon v. State, 939 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved, 980 So.2d 1038 (Fla.2008); Prudent v. State, 974 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).