REUBEN WATSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court properly denies a jury instruction on the necessity defense for felon in possession of a firearm when the defendant fails to present evidence that he had no reasonable legal alternative to possessing the firearm or that the firearm was made available without preconceived design.
[1] A defendant charged with felon in possession of a firearm is not entitled to a jury instruction on the necessity defense unless he presents evidence that he had no reason…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 appellant failed to present evidence that he did not have any reasonable, legal alternative to possessing the firearm or that the firearm was made available to him without a preconceived design”
Court's explanation for why necessity defense instruction was properly denied
Reuben Watson was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Watson requested a jury instruction on the necessity defense.…
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 Necessity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
REUBEN WATSON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2939
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 16, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Arnold v. State, 37 So. 3d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (concluding that the trial court correctly denied the appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity as it related to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where the “appellant failed to present evidence that he did not have any
2 reasonable, legal alternative to possessing the firearm or that the firearm was made available to him without a preconceived design” (citing Marrero v. State, 516 So. 2d 1052, 1054 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))).
LAMBERT, TRAVER, and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hipolito Marrero v. State, 516 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez Arnold v. State, 37 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)