or great bodily harm and did have a duty to try to retreat before using deadly force if in fear of death or great bodily harm. As noted, Floyd’s only defense at trial was that he had used deadly force to defend himself and others. The conflicting jury instructions negated each other in their effect, and therefore negated their possible application to Floyd’s only defense. As the court in Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), explained: [W]here, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant. See also Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Grier v. State, 928 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA
holding that instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force was of the essence of appellants defense and clearly should have been given holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the level of fundamental error holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense