259 So. 3d 728
Fla.2018Background
- On July 31, 2013, Deputies responded to a report of Jermaine McBean carrying what appeared to be a rifle; McBean suffered from recent mental-health issues.
- Deputy Peter Peraza ordered McBean to stop; McBean walked to an apartment pool area, raised the rifle over his head, turned toward the deputies, and (per the trial court) pointed the weapon at them.
- Peraza fired three times, killing McBean. The trial court found the factual disputes resolved in Peraza’s favor after an evidentiary hearing.
- Peraza was indicted for manslaughter with a firearm; he moved to dismiss claiming Stand Your Ground immunity (sections 776.012(1) and 776.032(1)) and an alternative defense under section 776.05 (law-enforcement use of force).
- The trial court granted dismissal based on Stand Your Ground immunity. The State appealed, arguing officers cannot invoke Stand Your Ground immunity when section 776.05 already provides a law-enforcement use-of-force defense.
- The Fourth District affirmed that officers may assert Stand Your Ground immunity and certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Caamano; the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Peraza's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a law-enforcement officer making a lawful arrest may assert Stand Your Ground immunity (pretrial immunity under §§ 776.012 and 776.032) | Officers are limited to the statutory law-enforcement defense in § 776.05 and cannot invoke the Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity remedy | An officer is a “person” under §§ 776.012 and 776.032 and thus may claim Stand Your Ground immunity, including a pretrial immunity determination | Law enforcement officers are eligible to assert Stand Your Ground immunity, even when force occurred during a lawful arrest; Peraza entitled to immunity based on trial-court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Caamano, 105 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (held officers cannot invoke Stand Your Ground when § 776.05 provides the law-enforcement defense)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (statutory construction: unambiguous statutory language controls)
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006) (standard of review for statutory construction is de novo)
- Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1992) (give words their plain and ordinary meaning)