Motley v. State

56 Citing cases

  1. McCree v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

    663 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Fla. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Parker v. State, 458 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1984) (emphasis added). See also Motley v. State, 20 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1945) (describing law as well-settled that a defendant "is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense where there is evidence introduced in support thereof" and holding that failure to give requested instruction in such a case is necessarily prejudicial to the defendant). In the instant case, there was a substantial amount of evidence presented that, if believed, would support the theory of independent act — specifically, a theory that Petitioner believed he was assisting Brian Turner in the commission of a (non-violent) drug deal, that he did not know about the attempted robbery in advance or take part in it, and that Brian Turner's attempt to rob Allen was outside of and a not reasonably foreseeable consequence of the drug deal he thought had been planned.

  2. Smith v. State

    521 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1988)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that the doctrine of fundamental error should be applied only in rare cases where either a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application, and concluding that an incorrect jury instruction on an affirmative defense was not fundamental error because it was not "so flawed as to deprive defendants claiming the defense . . . of a fair trial"

    Indeed, our courts have recognized this principle over and over in cases where the trial court failed to adequately instruct the jury on analogous affirmative defenses. Walsingham v. State, 250 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1971) (failure to instruct on affirmative defense to crime of unlawful abortion); Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798, 800 (1945) (incorrect charge on the law of self defense); Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (failure to instruct on defense of justifiable homicide when counsel failed to object at trial); Bagley v. State, 119 So.2d 400, 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) (failure to instruct on defense of justifiable homicide when counsel failed to object at trial). In Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 836, 158 So. 454 (1935), we also stated that the failure adequately to apprise the jury of every element of a crime

  3. Curington v. State

    704 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Stating that "[w]here evidence presented at trial supports an instruction on self-defense (use of deadly force as well as non-deadly force), it is error not to give it."

    Bagley v. State, 119 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). See also Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798, 800 (1945); Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454, 455 (1935). In this case, we do not need to find fundamental error because the instruction was proffered, although belatedly.

  4. Gelhaus v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

    194 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1952)   Cited 12 times

    statement was made and the lack of soundproofing of the partitions in the office, a jury could hold that the statement was deliberately and intentionally published; (2) since the statement was not made to any of Ray's superiors or to any of the employees who were entitled to know his grounds for discharge, the statement was not privileged; and (3) if it would have been qualifiedly privileged, the loud and angry tones and conduct of Ray furnished a basis for a finding that the statement was made with actual malice, and the privilege was unavailing. Upon the issue of the claim for damages for assault and trespass, the appellant insists that, considering the time, manner and circumstances of their making the threats to his person and property must be regarded as actionable under the decisions in Florida defining assault as an unlawful offer or attempt to injure another with apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt under circumstances creating a fear of imminent peril, of which Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 is typical. Opposing these views, the appellee insists: (1) that under the undisputed evidence of the secretary, which, uncontradicted and unimpeached, must be taken as true, that she did not hear the words complained of, there is a complete failure of proof of publication; and that if it could be said that there was an issue of fact upon whether she heard them, this would be only an incidental and accidental publication, and, therefore, not actionable.

  5. Barnett v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections

    CASE NO: 08:07-cv-635-T-30MAP (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2009)

    " The self-defense instruction can be likened to an element of the offense for its importance to the defendant. See Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1945) (reversing for a new trial based on an erroneous self-defense instruction). Therefore, applying Reed, because the erroneous instruction was relevant to the disputed issue at trial, we conclude that the error was fundamental.

  6. Rockmore v. State

    140 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that the theft of property and use of force must be a continuous series of acts or events

    Our precedent is clear that “it is the duty of the [trial] court to define each and every element” of the crime and that this duty equally applies to “charging on the law relative to the defense.” Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798, 800 (1945). Contrary to the Fifth District's conclusion below, a party does not invite the trial court to breach this duty simply by proffering an instruction that the trial court modifies—over objection—to include an incorrect statement of law.

  7. Martinez v. State

    981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the use of deadly force would not be justifiable if the defendant was attempting to commit an attempted murder or aggravated battery because those were "the very crimes [the defendant] attempted to justify as having been committed in self-defense"

    The reasoning of the majority that this Court has "never held that the failure to give an instruction or to give an erroneous instruction on an affirmative defense always constitutes fundamental error" is incorrect — although the legal term "fundamental error" was not expressly utilized in the pertinent case. In Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798, 799 (1945), the defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. Motley contended that he shot the victim when the victim approached him "swinging his hands in a threatening manner."

  8. Smith v. State

    424 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1983)   Cited 13 times

    Appellant correctly points out that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instructions. Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945); Laythe v. State, 330 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1976); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Canada v. State, 139 So.2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). If there is any evidence of withdrawal, an instruction should be given.

  9. Bryant v. State

    412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that, where the victim was alive when the defendant left the scene and the co-felon remained with the victim, there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that the defendant had withdrawn from the criminal enterprise before the sexual battery and death of the victim occurred

    We disagree. In this case, there was evidence to support Bryant's theory of defense, and the requested instruction should have been given. Where there is any evidence introduced at trial which supports the theory of the defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense when he so requests. Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945). The record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Bryant was present during and participated in the robbery. If the jury finds that the tying of the victim by Bryant during the course of the robbery or any other acts committed by Bryant or his accomplice during the perpetration of the robbery either caused or materially contributed to the victim's death, then it may properly find Bryant guilty of first-degree murder.

  10. State v. White

    324 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1976)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that “fear must be proved” and disapproving cases that had held that assault “does not require an awareness by the victim of imminent peril”

    In contrast to this view, the district courts in Battle and McCullers held that criminal assault, unlike the tort of assault, does not require an awareness by the victim of imminent peril. At the time of trial in this case, the elements of an "assault" were not expressed in any statute. The elements had been stated by this Court, however, in Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945), where assault was defined as a wrongful action creating a fear of imminent bodily harm coupled with an apparent present ability to inflict injury. This definition has been followed by several district courts of this state, and it was repeated with approval by this Court as recently as 1973. 784.04, Fla. Stat. (1973), defined aggravated assault as assault with the additional element of a deadly weapon.