105 So. 3d 5
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Leasure was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years for shooting Tilley; the Stand Your Ground immunity motion was denied and the judgment appealed.
- Relationship timeline: Leasure met Tilley in January 2009 at the Peabody Hotel, began a relationship, and he engaged in lavish behavior while drinking.
- February–March 2009: Tilley returned to Florida, relationships deteriorated, and Tilley became volatile and intoxicated.
- March 4–5, 2009: Leasure hosted mixed company, L. left with Prochaska, Tilley remained upset; Tilley threatened self-harm and, later, Leasure was confronted in the kitchen where he was shot.
- After the shooting, Leasure made multiple inconsistent statements to 9-1-1 and to detectives, including shifting explanations of how the gun came to be involved.
- At trial, Leasure testified to a self-defense narrative with varying details, while medical and forensic evidence conflicted with her versions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under Stand Your Ground was proven by preponderance | Leasure argues she reasonably believed deadly force was necessary | State contends inconsistencies negate immunity | Immunity not proven by preponderance; court affirmed denial of motion to dismiss. |
| Self-defense claim on judgment of acquittal | State failed to rebut her self-defense claim | State properly rebutted with conflicting evidence | Sufficient evidence to allow jury to reject self-defense; no error in denial of acquittal. |
| Malice/intent element for depraved mind second-degree murder | Evidence showed self-defense motive; lack of ill will | Circumstantial evidence supported depraved mind | Circumstantial evidence supported inference of ill will; no acquittal required. |
| Appropriate standard of review | Trial court misapplied the standard | Proper de novo review applied | De novo review applied using proper standard; no error in analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasley v. State, 878 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (circumstantial evidence supports motive and other inferences against self-defense)
- Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (need for rebuttal evidence when defendant is sole witness varies by case)
- Stinson v. State, 69 So.3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (State may rebut self-defense with inconsistent statements and behavior)