Skip to Main Content

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense in Florida by Charnele Tate: Requirements for Immunity

Wonder v. State, 64 So.3d 1208 (2011)

Where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of §776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.

Source: Westlaw

Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)

A writ of prohibition is the proper vehicle for challenging a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a charge made on the ground of immunity from prosecution pursuant to the so-called "Stand Your Ground Law."

Source: Westlaw

Little v. State of Florida, 111 So.3d 214 (2013)

Section 776.013(3) applies when a person is (1) not engaged in an unlawful activity and (2) attacked in any place outside the “castle” as long as (3) he or she has a right to be there. A person who does not meet these three requirements would look to section 776.012(1) to determine whether the use of deadly force was justified. The presumptions in sections 776.013(1) and (4) apply only when a person is attacked in the “castle.” And the presumption in section 776.013(1) does not apply if the person was engaged in an unlawful activity. 
The requirements under sections 776.012(1) and 776.013(3) are not identical. A person proceeding under section 776.013(3) would have to prove that he or she reasonably believed the use of deadly force was “necessary ... to prevent death or great bodily harm ... or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Under section 776.012(1), a person would have to prove that he or she reasonably believed the use of deadly force was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm ... or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” 
Excerpt from Westlaw

State v. Gallo, 76. So.3d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011)

Defendant who was found by the trial court to have used deadly force pursuant to Stand-Your-Ground law was immune from prosecution, where trial court held an evidentiary hearing, made determinations of credibility, weighed the numerous pieces of conflicting evidence, and set forth extensive factual findings in a nine-page-order.

Source: Westlaw

Martinez v. State, 44 So.3d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2010)

Murder defendant had clear legal right to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and adjudication of his immunity claim under the Stand Your Ground Law, and, thus, was entitled to mandamus relief, as defendant filed motion asserting entitlement to immunity under Stand Your Ground Law seven weeks prior to trial, which was well in advance of scheduled trial date, such that to decline to conduct a pre-trial hearing and determine immunity issue prior to trial would operate to deprive defendant of at least some measure of the "true" immunity contemplated by the legislature.

Source: Westlaw

Search the Library to locate books, e-books, videos, articles, journals...
Search For

Other Search Options