Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: TREVOR DOOLEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-04-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TREVOR DOOLEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
In Floyd, for example, the court noted that when it approves a standard instruction it does not express an opinion on the instruction's correctness, that standard instructions "serve merely as guidelines that are subject to the trial judge's modifications," and that the failure to timely object to an instruction may have some bearing on whether the jury instruction is perceived as confusing or misleading. 186 So. 3d at 1022-23 . -8- appellate review even in the absence of an objection." (citing Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ASHLYN SALOMON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Appellant correctly points out that the erroneous instruction impacted his sole defense of “self-defense justifiable use of force.” “[W]here . . . a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Williams v. State, 982 So. 2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Andujar-Ruiz v. State (4×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As in Dorsey , the instruction to the jury that Andujar-Ruiz had a duty to retreat constituted fundamental error because it effectively deprived him of his self-defense claim, his sole defense to the charges. “[Wjhere ... a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Williams v. State, 982 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (alterations in original) (quoting Carter v. State,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Appellant cites several cases for the proposition that “ ‘[wjhere ... a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.’ ” Floyd v. State, 151 So.3d 452, 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), review granted, SC14-2162 (Fla.2014) (quoting Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bryant Daniel Neal v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Failure to give a complete and accurate instruction is fundamental error, renewable in the complete absence of a request or objection. 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Tramel v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Timothy Donald Helton v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Floyd v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
As the court in Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), explained: [W]here, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garrett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where “the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morgan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Furney v. State, 115 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding fundamental error to give forcible-felony instruction where eyewitnesses had different version of events, creating classic “he said/she said,” defendant’s sole defense was effectively negated by improper instruction, and state argued forcible-felony exception during closing argument); Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding outdated jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force effectively negated defendant’s claim of self defense, and amounted to fundamental error); Carter v. State, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Talley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Failure to give a complete and accurate instruction is fundamental error, reviewable in the complete absence of a request or objection. 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wagner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 982 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Johnson v. State, 747 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). “[Wjhere ... a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Id. at 1194 (quoting Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) KRAMPERT v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See id.; Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 982 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Therefore, as the defendant correctly argues, the law did not require him to retreat because he was neither involved in any unlawful activity nor in a place that he did not have a right to be. "[W]here ... a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant." Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
While *1164 no contemporaneous objection was made, the District Court concluded that fundamental error occurred because the instruction negated the defendant's sole defense to the homicide. "[W]here, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error. . . ." Carter, 469 So.2d at 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
It is also an error squarely within the scope of the principle we stated in Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), that fundamental error occurs where an erroneous instruction is given and "the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense." [2] Conclusion York's self-defense claim was the basis for his whole defense at trial.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lester v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Sigler v. State, 590 So.2d 18, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quaggin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Cf. Summers v. State, 672 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (finding fundamental error in a manslaughter case where the instruction on justifiable and excusable homicide was "incomplete in its failure to explain the alternative elements of excusable homicide"); Jones v. State, 666 So.2d *24 995, 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (finding that "the trial court's giving of an incomplete and inaccurate instruction on the law during jury instruction constitutes fundamental error where the error relates to an element of the offense"); Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ("[W]here, as here…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sigler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
However, that statement, derived from Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), appears to have been clearly dicta.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reed v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bagley v. State, 119 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The giving of a misleading instruction constitutes both fundamental and reversible error.”); Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 195-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“We further recognize the fact that counsel made no objection to these instructions as given by the court.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alejo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bagley v. State, 119 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
discussed Cited "see" Luis Rios v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams, 982 So.2d at 1194 (“ ‘[W]here ... a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.’”) (quoting Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
discussed Cited "see" Dortch v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (stating that “where, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.”).
discussed Cited "see" Grier v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Carter, 889 So.2d at 939 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ("where, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error . . . reviewable in the complete absence of a request or objection"); Dunnaway v. State, 883 So.2d 876, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("fundamental error results where an inaccurate and misleading instruction negates a defendant's only defense").
cited Cited "see" Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" Cole v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" Spaziano v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“[Wjhere, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trace v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Dion v. State, 564 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (error for trial court to instruct jury as a matter of law that police officer was acting lawfully when he arrested appellant); See also Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 195-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (failure to give a complete and accurate instruction on defendant’s only defense is fundamental error, reviewable in the complete absence of a request or objection).
Carolyn CARTER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
84-488.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 22, 1985.
469 So. 2d 194
Hall.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published

Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Public Defender, Peter A. Dubensky and Alan R. Dakan, Asst. Public Defenders, Sarasota, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

By jury trial, the defendant, Carolyn Carter, was found guilty of manslaughter. She raises two issues on appeal. The first issue concerns the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the forcible felony aspect of the standard jury instruction on self-defense. The second issue concerns the sufficiency of the evidence as to the defendant's guilt.

The state charged appellant with second degree murder of one Charles Martin. The evidence presented at trial established that appellant fatally stabbed her boyfriend, Charles Martin, with a knife during a heated argument in appellant's home. Earlier in the evening at a neighborhood tavern, appellant and the victim had engaged in an altercation over the victim's car keys. Appellant[*195] had apparently confiscated the victim's car keys because of his intoxication and in order to prevent him from driving. There was evidence that during this altercation, the victim knocked appellant to the ground and took her purse. Shortly thereafter the victim left the tavern.

Approximately two hours later the victim showed up at appellant's home and began to curse and fight with appellant. Fanny Williams, a friend of appellant, was also present in appellant's home. She saw the victim standing in the hallway of appellant's home fussing and cursing appellant, who was sitting in her bedroom crying and telling the victim to leave. A scuffle ensued with the victim attacking appellant. He relentlessly pursued her from room to room in her home, beating her with his fists and a radio swung by its cord as a weapon. According to appellant's tape recorded statement to the police, which the state subsequently played into evidence, appellant ran to the kitchen and the victim came after her pinning her against the kitchen sink. She picked up things from the sink and was throwing them at him while he was hitting her about the head and body with his fists. Finally, she grabbed something, probably a knife or a fork, and stabbed him one time. The victim then backed off and ran out the front door. A sheriff's deputy found the victim lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk fifteen feet from appellant's front door. Following the incident, appellant was taken to the emergency room of the hospital where she was treated for a deep, four-inch cut on her leg. The evidence also showed that she had bruises on her arm and back, a swollen eye, and abrasions on her face.

Appellant requested the standard jury instructions on self-defense. The trial court gave the standard instructions but refused to include the phrase "prevent the imminent commission of aggravated battery." The trial court did instruct the jury on the self-defense instruction as to "preventing imminent death or great bodily harm." Appellant objected to the instructions based on this deletion. The trial court further instructed the jury as follows:

If Carolyn Carter was attacked in her own home or on her own premises she has a duty to retreat and the lawful right to stand her ground and meet force with force even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Prior to the jury retiring to consider their verdict, the trial court further emphasized the erroneous instruction by giving the jury the following instruction.

If Carolyn Carter was attacked in her own home or on her own premises she had the duty to retreat and the lawful right to stand her ground and meet force with force even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself.

(Emphasis supplied.)

In reading these instructions, it is evident that the trial court unintentionally misstated the law as applicable to self-defense. These instructions would lead a jury to believe that a person has the duty to retreat in their own home before she could meet force with force even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself. These instructions have the effect of negating appellant's only defense to the homicide.

In Florida an individual attacked in his or her home has no duty to retreat unless the attacker has a right at least equal to that of the individual to be on the premises. State v. Bobbitt, 415 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1982); Cannon v. State, 464 So.2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We find that the instructions as given by the court are erroneous as a matter of law and inherently misleading.

We further recognize the fact that counsel made no objection to these instructions as given by the court. However,[*196] where, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant's only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant. Failure to give a complete and accurate instruction is fundamental error, reviewable in the complete absence of a request or objection. Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bagley v. State, 119 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945). Considering the facts of this case, we hold that these instructions constitute fundamental error.

In this instance, it is even more prejudicial to the defendant. The trial court emphasized the erroneous instruction by rereading it to the jurors just prior to their retiring to the jury room to consider their verdict. "Particularly in a criminal trial, the judge's last word is apt to be the decisive word." Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612, 66 S.Ct. 402, 405, 90 L.Ed. 350, 354 (1946).

We therefore reverse on the erroneous "duty to retreat" instruction. We find no error in the trial court's refusal to include in the self-defense instruction the requested phrase "prevent the imminent commission of aggravated battery" when he had instructed on "preventing death or great bodily harm." We also find no merit in appellant's second point on appeal.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.