YOLINDA WRIGHT ZINNERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Yolinda Zinnerman was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting her roommate, but the Fifth District reversed because the jury instruction on self-defense contained a circular 'forcible felony exception' that negated her affirmative defense when she was charged with only one criminal act. The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether fundamental error occurs when an erroneous jury instruction relates only to an affirmative defense.
The court reversed Zinnerman's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the self-defense jury instruction constituted fundamental error. The instruction was circular and negated the self-defense affirmative defense because it should only be given when the defendant is charged with at least two independent criminal acts. Fundamental error can be considered in the absence of an objection.
[1] A jury instruction based on section 776.041(1), Florida Statutes, is fundamentally erroneous when a defendant claims self-defense as to all charged offenses.
[2] The statute governing the justifiable use of force is inapplicable when a defendant claims self-defense for the very acts with which they are charged.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find: The defendant was attempting to commit or committing murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree or manslaughter”
The problematic jury instruction that negated self-defense by making it inapplicable when the defendant committed the very crime charged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYolinda Zinnerman shot and killed her roommate, William Snyder. Zinnerman's defense was self-defense, supported by testimony regarding tension between…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forcible Felony Exception To Self-Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Yolinda Zinnerman was charged with first-degree murder after she shot and killed her roommate, William Snyder. Her lone defense was self-defense1 and the jury was instructed in that regard in the following manner:
However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find:
1. The defendant was attempting to commit or committing murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree or manslaughter....
No objection was made to the instruction.
This particular instruction has been deemed the forcible felony exception and caselaw has held that it should only be given when the defendant is charged with at least two independent criminal acts. Hawk v. State, 902 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Otherwise, the instruction is circular and negates the defense of self-defense. See Bevan v. State, 908 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 901 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 913 So. 2d 598 (Fla.2005).
Several cases have recognized that instructing the jury in such a manner constitutes fundamental error and can be considered in the absence of an objection. See Carter v. State, 889 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 903 So. 2d 190 (Fla.2005); Cleveland; Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 890 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.2004); Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We are bound by our decisions in Carter and Cleveland. Accordingly, we reverse Zinnerman’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance:
DOES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OCCUR WHEN AN ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION RELATES ONLY TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND NOT TO AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME?
REVERSED and REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
THOMPSON and LAWSON, JJ., concur. SAWAYA, J., dissents without opinion.
. The State argues that there was no evidence of self-defense, however there was testimony regarding the tension between Zinnerman and Snyder and evidence was introduced that Snyder's DNA was found on the knife that was found near his body. As stated in Brozey v. State, 911 So. 2d 867, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), "[a] criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2008)…at a conviction for premeditated first-degree murder does not preclude a finding that the giving of the forcible-felony instruction constituted fundamental error. See McJimsey v. State, 959 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Zinner-man v. State, 942 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Both of these district courts have concluded that to give the forcible-felony instruction in the absence of an independent forcible felony is circular and totally negates a claim of self-defense. See McJimsey, 959 So. 2d at…
-
Sloss v. State, 965 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…to a new trial without the forcible felony exception. As we did in Blanton v. State, 956 So. 2d 480, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), Slattery v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D305, — So. 2d -, 2007 WL 186947 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 26, 2007), and Zinnerman v. State, 942 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance: DOES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OCCUR WHEN AN ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION RELATES ONLY TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND NOT TO AN ESSENTIAL ELEM…
-
Blanton v. State, 956 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…2003). This court has, in fact, certified this issue to the Florida Supreme Court on a number of occasions, most recently in Slattery v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D305, — So. 2d -, 2007 WL 186947 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan.26, 2007)3; and Zinnerman v. State, 942 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Thus, while we reverse the judgments and sentences on this issue, we again certify the following issue to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OCCUR WHEN AN ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION RELATES ONLY TO AN AFFIRMATIVE…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Rich v. State, 858 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Velazquez v. State, 884 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Carter v. State, 889 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Estevez v. State, 901 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Mister Hawk v. State, 902 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Bevan v. State, 908 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Mullins v. State, 890 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2004)
- Williams v. State, 901 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 913 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2005)