battery.” Id. (citing Davis v. State, 804 So.2d 400, 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (deeming it fundamental error to give an inaccurate and misleading instruction where the effect of that instruction is to negate a defendant’s only defense); Harris v. State, 570 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (instructing that the trial court should give a complete and accurate instruction so as not to negate the defendant’s theory of self-defense)). Giles noted that although aggravated battery is indeed a forcible felony, the Florida statute’s plain language reflects that it applies “only under circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another, independent ‘forcible felony’ at the time.” 831 So.2d at 1265 (citing Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1991) (<HOLDING>)). That is, “[t]he instruction is normally
holding that a reasonable jury could have concluded based on repeated references to the substance as cocaine and testimony from witnesses who had used the substances which they believed to be cocaine that substance was cocaine holding that the term cocaine base in 21 usc  841b1 refers to cocaine in its chemically basic form which includes but is not limited to crack cocaine holding that cocaine trafficking was not a forcible felony so as to preclude the defense of selfdefense when the killing occurred during an attempt to traffic in cocaine holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell