357 So.3d 1249
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Emilio Quevedo was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile after shooting his neighbor, Jose Camacho, during an altercation captured on video.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" immunity, asserting he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary because Camacho threatened to "bust [his] mouth" and advanced while shouting "I’m going to kill you."
- Defendant submitted an affidavit and medical records showing he suffers from Von Willebrand disease, a bleeding disorder that could make a punch to the mouth or nose life‑threatening; a hematologist and family testimony corroborated this risk.
- The State stipulated the defendant established a prima facie claim of immunity (Camacho was the initial aggressor; defendant was not engaged in criminal activity; defendant was in a place he had a right to be), shifting the burden to the State to rebut by clear and convincing evidence.
- A multi‑day immunity hearing considered video (with translation), medical evidence, and witness testimony; the trial court found Camacho the initial aggressor, found Camacho’s testimony not credible, and concluded the defendant’s belief was objectively reasonable given his medical condition and the assaultive advance.
- The trial court ruled the State failed to overcome immunity; on appeal the court applied the mixed standard of review, found the trial court’s factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State overcame the defendant's prima facie Stand Your Ground immunity by clear and convincing evidence that deadly force was not reasonably necessary | Evidence and testimony disprove that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have believed deadly force necessary | Defendant reasonably believed deadly force necessary because of threats, Camacho’s advance, size disparity, and defendant’s bleeding disorder | Trial court’s factual findings supported; State failed to meet clear and convincing standard; immunity upheld |
| Standard of review for Stand Your Ground determinations | Trial court’s legal conclusion should be reviewed de novo; factual findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence | Trial court’s findings on facts and credibility should be upheld if supported | Appellate court applied mixed standard (defer to factual findings; review legal conclusions de novo) and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vino, 100 So. 3d 716 (discusses review standard for immunity rulings)
- Bouie v. State, 292 So. 3d 471 (explains burden on party seeking to overcome immunity)
- Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019 (clarifies State’s burden to rebut prima facie immunity)
- Viera v. State, 163 So. 3d 602 (describes objective-reasonableness standard measured against defendant’s perceptions)
- Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (applies objective standard to self-defense claims)
- Toledo v. State, 452 So. 2d 661 (self-defense measured by what a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would do)
- Price v. Gray's Guard Servs., Inc., 298 So. 2d 461 (explains applying objective standard to facts as they appeared to defendant)