Little v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5670
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Little sought certiorari/prohibition to challenge circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss a second-degree murder with a firearm charge, arguing Stand Your Ground immunity.
- Court treats petition as writ of prohibition to review circuit court jurisdiction and eligibility for immunity de novo.
- Facts: Brooks threatened Little from outside, Little retreated into a house; Brooks pursued and threatened with guns; Little exited with gun drawn and fired when Brooks advanced, killing Brooks.
- Little was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm; the circuit court did not resolve whether arming was lawful, addressing only whether Little was in a zone of imminent threat.
- The appellate court held Little’s deadly force was justified under 776.012(1), granting immunity under 776.032(1); rejected the State’s alternative that immunity is unavailable due to unlawful activity under 776.013(3).
- Court certified conflict with Hill (State v. Hill, 95 So.3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)) and posed a question of great public importance about immunity when the defendant proves deadly force is permitted under 776.012(1) but is engaged in unlawful activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Little is entitled to immunity under 776.032(1). | Little established immunity via 776.012(1) to prevent imminent death. | State contends no immunity because of unlawful activity; but 776.032(1) supports immunity based on 776.012(1) or 776.013(3). | Yes; immunity under 776.032(1) based on 776.012(1) was established. |
| Did the circuit court properly find reengagement after removal from threat? | There is no evidence Little reengaged Brooks; he acted under threat and tried to de-escalate. | Circuit court found Little reengaged when arming and exiting. | Circuit court erred by finding reengagement; no competent evidence of reengagement. |
| Can immunity under 776.032(1) attach when the defendant is a felon in illegal possession of a firearm under 776.013(3) and 776.012(1)? | Immunity can attach via 776.012(1) independent of 776.013(3); 776.032(1) covers 776.012(1). | State argues unlawful activity defeats immunity under 776.013(3). | Immunity can attach via 776.012(1) despite unlawful activity; 776.032(1) covers both 776.012(1) and 776.013(3). |
| Do 776.012(1) and 776.013(3) conflict, such that Hill would preclude immunity when unlawful activity is present? | Statutes operate in pari materia; both independently authorize justifiable use of deadly force. | State contends conflict; Hill suggests the unlawful activity bar under 776.013(3). | No irreconcilable conflict; statutes operate independently; immunity may be predicated on either. |
| Should the court certify a question to the Supreme Court regarding immunity when 776.012(1) is proven but unlawful activity is present? | Unnecessary if 776.032(1) provides immunity via 776.012(1). | Clarification is needed due to conflict with Hill and public importance. | Question certified as one of great public importance; petition granted for certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montanez v. State, 24 So.3d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stand your ground immunity review; zone of uncertainty concept)
- Horn v. State, 17 So.3d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (review of immunity standards; de novo legal review)
- Hill, State v., 95 So.3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (criminal immunity under Stand Your Ground and felon in possession disputes)
- Darling v. State, 81 So.3d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (immunity impairment when felon in illegal possession of firearm)
- Dorsey v. State, 74 So.3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (limits of immunity when unlawful activity present)
- Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So.2d 745 (Fla.1977) (writs of prohibition in review of immunity orders)
- Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1049 (Fla.1999) (castle doctrine explanation; retreat and defense principles)