LibGuides: Stand Your Ground and Self Defense in Florida by Charnele Tate: ALR

73 A.L.R. 4th 993

Link to ALR
Link via Westlaw

Standard for determination of reasonableness of criminal defendant's belief, for purposes of self-defense claim, that physical force is necessary—modern cases

This annotation collects and analyzes the post-1965 state and federal cases in which the courts have discussed the applicable standard for determining the reasonableness of a criminal defendant's belief, for purposes of such defendant's claim of self-defense, that the use of physical force was necessary.

Source: Westlaw

121 ALR 380

Behanna v. State, 985 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)

Admissibility on issue of self-defense (or defense of another), on prosecution for homicide or assault, of evidence of specific acts of violence by deceased, or person assaulted, against others than defendant

It is a general rule in most jurisdictions that on a trial for homicide, or for an assault and battery, where the defendant has laid a proper foundation by evidence tending to show that, in committing the homicide or assault, he acted in self-defense, he may introduce evidence of the turbulent and dangerous character of the deceased or party assaulted. The question with which the present annotation is concerned is whether this rule extends so as to permit the defendant, in proving such turbulent and dangerous character, to introduce in evidence specific acts of violence on the part of the deceased or party assaulted against others than the defendant, and the conditions under which such evidence may be admissible.

Source: Westlaw

Florida Cases:

Link to ALR
Link via Westlaw

76 ALR 6th 1

Cruz v. State, 54 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

Construction and Application of "Make My Day" and "Stand Your Ground" Statutes

In recent years, many jurisdictions have enacted "make my day" statutes, which grant tort or criminal immunity to defendants who use force against home intruders or other persons confronting them under certain circumstances. The phrase is based on a line in a movie by the actor Clint Eastwood, who points a gun at a robber and warns him not to continue, saying, "go ahead, make my day." While these statutes, which are also often termed "stand your ground" statutes, differ greatly from each other, they usually remove the common-law requirement of retreating from a confrontation. For example, in Dawkins v. State, 2011 OK CR 1, 252 P.3d 214, 76 A.L.R.6th 673 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011), the court concluded that the legislature's intent in providing that, for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be "engaged in an unlawful activity," was to exclude from the benefit of this statute persons who were actively committing a crime, not persons who had or might have committed a crime in the past, but without requiring a connection between the type of unlawful activity and the use of defensive force. The court further found that the defendant was not entitled to immunity since at the time that he shot the victim, he was using an illegally modified weapon—his sawed-off shotgun. Other cases have variously construed and applied state "make my day" or "stand your ground" statutes, as the following annotation illustrates.

Source: Westlaw

Florida Cases:

Dennis v. State 51 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2010)
Hair v. State, 17 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
Link to ALR
Link via Westlaw

43 ALR 3rd 221

Link to ALR
Link via Westlaw

Homicide: Modern Status of Rules as to Burden and Quantum of Proof to Show Self-Defense

This comment examines a selection of the reported cases in which the courts have stated the rules as to who has the burden of showing self-defense, or the absence thereof, in a prosecution for homicide, and by what quantum of proof.

Source: Westlaw

18 ALR 1279

Link to ALR
Link via Westlaw

Homicide: duty to retreat when not on one's own premises

The early common law with respect to the duty of a person assailed to retreat is to be found chiefly in the dicta of the text-writers, based on a few cases decided at a time when self-defense did not afford a legal justification, but only ground for a pardon. The law, as thus stated, was, in brief, that a man must "retreat to the wall" before killing in self-defense, except in the defense of his habitation. In a few jurisdictions it is maintained broadly that a person assailed is not justified in taking the life of his assailant if he can escape from danger by retreat. In other jurisdictions it is held that, if a person is assaulted in a place where he has a right to be, he may stand his ground, meet force with force, and, if need be, kill his assailant. Another line of cases adheres to an intermediate view that, if the assault is felonious, producing imminent peril of death or great bodily harm, there is no duty to retreat therefrom.

Source: Westlaw