ground of self defense in Florida

1976O’Steen v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 1062 , 111 So. 725 .

1976O’Steen v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 1062 , 111 So. 725 .

1985NOTES [1] See Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1984) (Florida follows the McNaughton test for insanity). [2] See McKnight v. State, 341 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (in order to justify a homicide on the ground of self defense, the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of life); see also § 782.02, Fla. Stat. (1981), which provides: Justifiable use of deadly force. — The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony

1985NOTES [1] See Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1984) (Florida follows the McNaughton test for insanity). [2] See McKnight v. State, 341 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (in order to justify a homicide on the ground of self defense, the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of life); see also § 782.02, Fla. Stat. (1981), which provides: Justifiable use of deadly force. — The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony

1944Appellant also insists that the court committed reversible error in giving a certain charge to the jury, as follows: “The court charges you that under the laws of this State a defendant may become a witness and testify in his own behalf, and in consideration of the testimony of such defendant, and the weight and credibility which should be given to the same, it is proper for you to take into consideration the interest which such defendant has in the trial and in its result, and all the circumstances by which he is surrounded at the time he testifies, and also the reasonableness or unreasonable

1944Appellant also insists that the court committed reversible error in giving a certain charge to the jury, as follows: “The court charges you that under the laws of this State a defendant may become a witness and testify in his own behalf, and in consideration of the testimony of such defendant, and the weight and credibility which should be given to the same, it is proper for you to take into consideration the interest which such defendant has in the trial and in its result, and all the circumstances by which he is surrounded at the time he testifies, and also the reasonableness or unreasonable

1944Appellant also insists that the court committed reversible error in giving a certain charge to the jury, as follows: “The court charges you that under the laws of this State a defendant may become a witness and testify in his own behalf, and in consideration of the testimony of such defendant, and the weight and credibility which should be given to the same, it is proper for you to take into consideration the interest which such defendant has in the trial and in its result, and all the circumstances by which he is surrounded at the time he testifies, and also the reasonableness or unreasonable

1923Rep. 196 ; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34 , 37 South.

1923“A defendant to justify his acts on the ground of self defense must have used all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety, to avoid danger and to avert the necessity of taking the- life of the 'deceased.” Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134 , 39 South.

1918King v. State, 54 Fla. 47 , 44 South.

1907Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142 , 11 South.

1907If the defendant was- the intentional aggressor,. or if the defendant was not reasonably free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, or if there were any other reasonable means at defendant’s command, consistent with his own safety, to which the defendant could have resorted instead of killing the deceased, if he did kill him, then he could not justify his act on the ground of self defense, and you should return 'a verdict of guilty as to some degree of unlawful homicide.” In Peadon v. State, 46 Fla. 124 , text 135, 35 South.