Hosnedl v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

    285 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2019)

    Mathis v. State, 863 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So.3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). § 782.02, Fla. Stat., and many statutes within Chapter 776 address the justifiable use or threatened use of deadly force, however, § 782.02, Fla. Stat., does not address the concept of stand-your-ground/no duty to retreat.

  2. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-07

    257 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Approving proposed amendments to Fla. Stand. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(f) and (g)

    Mathis v. State, 863 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So.3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Read in all cases.

  3. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2014–06

    191 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    Mathis v. State, 863 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Only the discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So.3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) . Read in all cases.

  4. Little v. State

    302 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    In Little v. State, 302 So.3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the trial court improperly placed the burden of proof at an SYG hearing on the defendant.

    In overturning the defendant's conviction, we explained: It is now well-established by this court that the discharge of a firearm constitutes deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State , 126 So. 3d 400, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citations omitted). Likewise, we also have established that the mere display of a gun is not deadly force as a matter of law. SeeCarter v. State , 115 So. 3d 1031, 1037 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("Apparently the firearm was not discharged and deadly force did not apply as a matter of law."); Howard v. State , 698 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("[E]ven the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not ‘deadly force.’ "

  5. Radler v. State

    290 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "Failure to give a standard jury instruction is reversible error when the omitted standard jury instruction goes to the heart of the defendant's case." Hosnedl v. State , 126 So. 3d 400, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Arboleda v. State , 645 So. 2d 48, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ). Although we could find no case law that specifically addresses the standard to be applied in assessing state of mind in the context of non-deadly force, we agree with the State that, similar to the context of deadly force, "[t]he law does not ascribe a subjective standard as to a defendant's state of mind, but concerns a reasonably prudent person's state of mind."

  6. Porter v. Dixon

    4:23cv419/WS/ZCB (N.D. Fla. Sep. 30, 2024)

    See Hosnedl v. State, 126 So.3d 400, 404-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that even the accidental discharge of a firearm is the use of deadly force as a matter of law); see also Miller v. State, 613 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that defendant's firing a warning shot in the air when the victim allegedly advanced on him with a stick, constituted the use of deadly force as a matter of law).

  7. Harold v. Sec'y

    Case No. 3:16-cv-888-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019)

    A firearm is, by definition, a deadly weapon because it is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive which is likely to cause death or great bodily injury." State v. Williams, 10 So. 3d 1172, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Hosnedl v. State, 126 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding accidental discharge of a firearm is the use of deadly force as a matter of law). The record reflects that count one of the Information alleged both discharge of a firearm and great bodily harm. Resp. Ex. 1 at 51.

  8. Croft v. State

    291 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    See Brown , 113 So. 3d at 104 (holding that a trial court errs in failing to give the non-deadly force instruction where any evidence presented at trial supports it); Radler v. State , 290 So.3d 87, 90–91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ("Failure to give a standard jury instruction is reversible error when the omitted standard jury instruction goes to the heart of the defendant’s case." (quoting Hosnedl v. State , 126 So. 3d 400, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) )). We reject the State’s argument that the failure to give the non-deadly force instruction was harmless error.

  9. Derossett v. State

    311 So. 3d 880 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining that "once a defendant raises a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity under [ section 776.032(4) ], the State bears the burden at the pretrial immunity or Stand Your Ground hearing of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, why the defendant is not entitled to immunity from further prosecution"

    The firing of a warning shot into the air constitutes an act of deadly force. SeeHosnedl v. State , 126 So. 3d 400, 404–05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). SO WHY IS DEROSSETT BEING PROSECUTED?

  10. Shenk v. State

    No. 2743 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 19, 2017)

    See Myers v. State, 237 Md. 632, 634 (1965) (finding that a gun that was fully loaded, but not fireable due to a defective firing pin, was a deadly weapon). See alsoMiller v. State, 613 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (finding no error in trial court's refusal to give jury instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force where defendant's "[f]iring a firearm in the air, even as a warning shot, constituted as a matter of law the use of deadly force"); Hosnedl v. State, 126 So. 3d 400, 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that because the discharge of a firearm constituted use of deadly force as matter of law, defendant was not entitled to jury instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force). "An instruction is applicable under the facts of the case when a defendant can point to some evidence that supports the requested instruction."