Case Name: David Wayne FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-04-26
Citations: 448 So. 2d 1239
Docket Number: No. 82-1369
Parties: David Wayne FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 448
Pages: 1239–1240

Head Matter:
David Wayne FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-1369.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 26, 1984.
Dan R. Warren of Judge & Warren, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
David Wayne Foster appeals from his conviction for aggravated battery. The question presented is whether the trial court, upon request, was required to instruct the jury on the lesser included charge of battery.
In State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1978), the supreme court stated that the failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense (one step removed) constitutes error that is per se reversible. See also State v. Bruns, 429 So.2d 307 (Fla.1983). Battery, as a necessarily lesser included offense of aggravated battery, is one step removed. See Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. Therefore, the court committed reversible error in denying the requested instruction.
The state's argument that under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b), the court was not required to instruct on battery ("the judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence"), because all the evidence pointed to an aggravated battery and not a simple battery, is answered in Wheat v. State, 433 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.