in which, A, the sexual organ of [D.S.] penetrated or had union with the vagina of [appellant]. The court also instructed the jury that “It is not a defense that [D.S.] was willing to engage in these acts which would constitute sexual battery or consent to engage in such acts.” From the instructions, the jury could have concluded that D.S. could not “consent” to a sexual act even if he was the aggressor. Therefore, the jury could find appellant guilty even if she was raped. The defense instruction was necessary to clarify the instructions so that the jury was not misled by the standard instructions. A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction where the evidence supports a claim that the victim was the aggressor. See, e.g., Deveaugh v. State, 575 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). The instruction requested in this case is
holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding that instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force was of the essence of appellants defense and clearly should have been given holding that an officer cannot use further nondeadly force against a restrained and subdued suspect holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the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