Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

ut munsel could not argue it because it was not supported by an instruction to
the jury. However, when 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 thmry of defense when he so reguests .bbtley v. State,
155 Fla. 545, 20 So. 2d 798 (1945); Bryant, supra. The sulxnitted instructions
were legally correct and supported by the evidence.
denied the jury a legal basis for accepting the defense and had the effect of
preventing counsel from arguing it, except in mitigation.
trial as to Counts 1 and 111.
i%RGmmT I1
Denial of the iulstructions
TI3E TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT
DUWSS IS NOT A DEFENSE TO HOMICIDE, WITHOUT REGARD
To WHE;THER THE accoSED WFS AN AIDER AND ABmR aS
OPPEED To A PRINCIPAL, AND WITHOUT RM*IARD TO Mm THE HWCIm W?S A PRENEDITATED OR A FELD?SN MURDER, IN
VIOLATION OF THF, MQIT OF AN ACCUSED TQ HAVE THE JURY
IN ACCORD WITH HIS DEFENSE, AND HIS RIGHT
TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANa OF COUNSEL, aS
BY THE FIFI'H, SIXTH, AND FWKEENH TO THE
U.S. CONSTITU'ITON AND AFKtTCLE I, SECTIONS 9 AND 16 OF
THE WKDA CONSTITUTION.
'Ihe r&y is a new
ming the trial, the defendant testified that he becm afraid of 9brtm-y
when mver nudered Richard Padgett. (T. 1846, 1851, 1861, 1863, 1872 ,
1878-1879, 1880-1881, 1924, 1945, 1979); that Gmover threatened he, his wife,
and his familywith violent retribution CT. 1847-1848, 1849, 1865, 1942); that
Grmver had another gun in addition to the first one the defmdant mlted d m
CT. 1850, 1861, 1934, 1951-1952); and that the defendant did not have a weapon
(T. 1863). hhm Billy Long got into Elaine Parker's car, the defendant believed
Long knew of Groover's plan, and he had seen Lmg with a gun in the past (T. 1868).
long was seated behind him and next to Elaine (T- 1870); and he was frightened
of bng and Grmver acting in concert. (T. 1880-1881, 1962). 01 cross-examination
by the prosecutor, he stated that he was co-erced into doing everythbg he did.
(T. 1979).
'Ihe state's theory of prosecution as to Count 11, the murder of Nancy
Page -31-