HUDSON v. STATE (2019)

Affirmed. See Sundberg v. State, 888 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense where the victim consistently testified, on direct examination and cross-examination, that the defendant was the aggressor, and where there was no evidence that the defendant was protecting himself); Rockerman v. State, 773 So. 2d 602, 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Because the only evidence even arguably supporting justifiable use of non-deadly force as a defense was adduced for impeachment purposes only, the trial court did not err in declining to give the requested instruction.”); Smiley v. State, 395 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“When considering the matter of threats in relation to proof of self-defense, there must be some evidence of an overt act expressing an intention to immediately execute the threats so that the person threatened has a reasonable belief that he will lose his life or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take [defensive action].”).

PER CURIAM.