1D2022-2798
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Roger Dale Raulerson was charged with aggravated battery, shooting into an occupied vehicle, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief after shooting twice into a car occupied by a married couple during an altercation.
- Raulerson claimed self-defense immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground statute, asserting he was preventing escape from a citizen's arrest and believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent harm.
- The incident followed reports by Raulerson to the police about the couple allegedly driving aggressively and a potential domestic altercation between them. Despite being told by law enforcement to stay at his residence, Raulerson armed himself and approached the couple.
- At the scene, Raulerson detained the couple at gunpoint, ordered them out of the car, and shot at the husband as he attempted to drive away. Forensic evidence and testimony contradicted Raulerson’s claim that he was directly threatened by the departing vehicle.
- The trial court denied Raulerson’s motion to dismiss the charges, finding he lacked an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary and was not entitled to self-defense immunity; thus, Raulerson petitioned for a writ of prohibition to stop the prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Raulerson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Writ of Prohibition | He is immune under Stand Your Ground, so prosecution should be barred. | Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy; he hasn't clearly shown entitlement. | Denied; writ is not appropriate where facts are disputed and immunity is unclear. |
| Lawfulness of Citizen’s Arrest | He was making a lawful citizen’s arrest for a felony committed in presence. | Citizen's arrest power is limited; statutes supersede common law for private acts. | Court found Raulerson’s authority to arrest dubious, and common law superseded by statute. |
| Objective Reasonableness of Deadly Force Use | He reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent harm or escape. | No credible evidence his life was threatened; husband was fleeing, not attacking. | No objectively reasonable belief of imminent harm; deadly force not justified. |
| Exception Because of Ongoing Criminal Activity | He was not committing a felony, so immunity should still apply. | Detaining by gunpoint could be false imprisonment/aggravated assault (felonies). | He was likely engaged in criminal acts, precluding statutory immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (reinforces the narrow and emergency-only use of writ of prohibition to prevent improper exercise of jurisdiction)
- Edwards v. State, 462 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (details common law origins and limitations of citizen’s arrest in Florida)
- Mandico v. Taos Constr. Inc., 605 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1992) (addresses proper, limited role of writs for interlocutory relief in criminal cases)
- Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015) (explains procedural burden in Stand Your Ground immunity hearings)