Palm Beach County Criminal & DUI Lawyer : Criminal & DUI Defense Attorney in West Palm Beach & Palm Beach | Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies

In the case of Aaron Little versus the State of Florida, Mr. Little was charged with committing the crime of second-degree murder with a firearm.  Little filed a motion to dismiss his case in which he argued that he shot the victim in self-defense and was therefore entitled to claim immunity from prosecution because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law which authorizes the use of deadly force when a person "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."

The trial judge who heard Little's motion to dismiss denied his motion because in the judge's opinion Little removed himself from the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm by going inside a house. However, Little then chose to arm himself with a gun and re-engaged the victim.  It was that action, according to the trial judge, that prevented Little from claiming immunity under the Stand Your Ground law.

However, the court of appeals which reviewed Little's case disagreed with the lower-court judge. The court of appeals said that there was no evidence that Little made any threatening moves towards the victim or that he said any threatening words to him.  Instead, the victim raised his guns and pointed them at Little, and Little, in turn, responded to that threat by shooting and killing the victim.  Therefore, Little was entitled to claim immunity under the Stand Your Ground law.

The prosecutor also argued that Little's motion to dismiss should be denied because Little was a felon who was in illegal possession of a gun when he killed the victim, and anyone who is engaged in unlawful activity cannot claim immunity under the Stand Your Ground law.

The court of appeals rejected that argument as well.  The court said that Little's status as a felon in possession of a firearm did not preclude his claim of immunity where the evidence showed that Little's use of force was justified to prevent his imminent death or great bodily harm.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

           Since it was reported that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, the media has talked a lot about Florida's Stand Your Ground law.  But what does that law actually say and how might it affect Mr. Zimmerman's case?

          Florida's Stand Your Ground Law states in relevant part that "[a] person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he . . . has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his . . . ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he . . . reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself."

          If Zimmerman can establish that he was complying with this law when he killed Trayvon Martin, then he should not be convicted of second degree murder.  But not only that.  If he can establish that he complied with that law, he should not have to stand trial at all.  Why not?  Because in the case of Clarence Dennis versus the State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court stated:

"While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, [the Stand Your Ground Law] contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial. [The Stand Your Ground Law] expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force. The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force."

          But how would Zimmerman get the judge who is handling his case to actually decide whether he will have to stand trial?  According to the Dennis case, his lawyer will have to file a motion to dismiss his case.  Of course, whether his lawyer will eventually decide to file such a motion remains to be seen.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

           In the case of William Stieh versus the State of Florida, Mr. Stieh was charged with the crime of aggravated battery after stabbing another individual.  The relevant facts of Stieh's case are as follows:

          "Conneally, the victim; the victim's girlfriend; Stieh, . . . ; and Jeffrey Flaherty, [Stieh's] friend—engaged in a consensual sexual encounter.  Conneally and his girlfriend were invited to join Stieh and Flaherty in the hotel room rented by Stieh.  After the three men had sex with Conneally's girlfriend, she and Conneally left the hotel.  Shortly after leaving, the two realized their wallets were missing, and they returned to Stieh's hotel room to search for them.  Upon arriving, Conneally initiated a physical confrontation with Flaherty.  In defense of himself and Flaherty, Stieh stabbed Conneally three times.

          At trial, the [prosecutor] did not contest that the victim was significantly larger in stature than Stieh—at 5 feet 5 inches tall and 130 pounds—and Flaherty—at 5 feet 7 inches tall and 160 pounds.  It was also uncontested that the victim was demeaning, demanding, and aggressive during the sexual encounter prior to the stabbing.  Finally, of the four people directly involved in the incident, only the victim testified that he was not angry upon his return to the hotel.  The other three testified that the victim was angry and that he forced entry into Stieh's hotel room.  The victim, however, testified that he only became angry upon finding the wallets under a trash can outside of the hotel room.  Thus, there was a consensus among the parties and witnesses that the victim either arrived angry and looking for a confrontation or became angry and confrontational after locating the wallets that appeared as though they had been intentionally hidden.

          The victim testified that while he and Flaherty were standing outside of the room, he found the wallets under a trash can.  He became angry and shoved Flaherty back inside the hotel room.  The two fought, the victim shoving Flaherty, and Flaherty punching the victim.  At some point during the skirmish, the victim realized he was bleeding and left the hotel room.  The victim did not testify to a physical altercation with Stieh and did not recall being stabbed.

          After the altercation and stabbing, two law enforcement officers arrived on the scene and interviewed Stieh and Flaherty.  Both officers testified that Stieh admitted stabbing the victim.  Officer Murray stated that Stieh told him he was scared and thought the victim was going to hurt Flaherty.  Stieh also told the officer the victim was 'off the chain.'  Officer Stewart testified Stieh told him that he had left the room after the victim and the victim's girlfriend returned to look for the wallets and that when he returned to the room, the victim was attacking Flaherty.  Stieh then told the officer that the victim charged him, that he told the victim to 'get back,' that the victim charged again, and that Stieh stabbed him.

          [Stieh]presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the victim's girlfriend, Flaherty, and Stieh.  Conneally's girlfriend testified that the victim was angry and yelling when they returned to the hotel.  She stated the victim punched and shoved both Flaherty and Stieh. Although she did not see the actual stabbing, she testified she did see the victim and Stieh standing face to face.

          Flaherty testified the victim was screaming that he was going to kill both Stieh and Flaherty for stealing the wallets.  He stated the victim attacked him and dragged him from his bed.  Flaherty yelled for Stieh's help, and Stieh attempted to separate the victim and Flaherty.  According to Flaherty, the victim then threw Stieh around the room and up against the door.  At some point, the victim forced Stieh out of the room, and Flaherty did not see the stabbing.

          Stieh testified the victim returned to the hotel screaming and threatening to kill Stieh. He confirmed Flaherty's account of the events, adding that he attempted to leave the hotel room but was caught by the victim and they exited the room together.  Stieh testified that upon seeing the wallets in the hallway, the victim yelled that he was going to kill them.  Stieh again tried to escape, this time back into the room, but the victim caught him.  The victim attempted to punch Stieh, and Stieh picked up a knife from the dresser and stabbed the victim.  Stieh testified he was scared for his life."

          After Stieh had presented all of his evidence, Stieh's lawyer asked the judge to find Stieh not guilty because the prosecutor had failed to disprove Stieh's theory of self-defense.  The judge did not do so, and Stieh was ultimately convicted of aggravated battery.

          On appeal, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal stated that when an accused individual presents a prima facie case of self-defense at his trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defense.  If the prosecutor fails to do that, the trial judge must find the accused not guilty.  The Court continued on to state that according to Florida law:

          "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

          The legal presumption that a defendant has a reasonable fear of great bodily harm sufficient to justify the use of deadly force applies when

[t]he person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle."

          The Second District Court of Appeal noted that in Stieh's case:

          1.  Stieh had a right to be in the hotel room because he had lawfully rented the room for the night;

          2.  Under Florida law, the hotel room qualified as a dwelling or residence;

          3.  Only one witness, the victim Conneally, testified that he did not forcibly enter the hotel room in search of the wallets. However, three other witnesses testified that Conneally forcibly removed Stieh from the room at one point during the altercation.  Therefore, under Florida law, Stieh had a right to defend himself;

          4.  Furthermore, two of the prosecutor's witnesses supported Stieh's self-defense argument when they testified that immediately after the stabbing, Stieh told them that he was acting in defense of Flaherty.  The Court observed that defense of another person is permitted under Florida law.

          The appellate court concluded that because the prosecutor failed to present legally-sufficient evidence to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense, the lower-court judge should have found him not guilty of aggravated battery.  Accordingly, the Second District Court of Appeal sent Stieh's case back to the lower court with instructions that Stieh should be found not guilty.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          According to Florida law, a person cannot be arrested for using force--even deadly force--unless the police first determine that there is probable cause to believe that the force used was unlawful.  But what happens in those situations in which the police believe that the force used was unlawful?  Are the police allowed to actually state their belief to a jury at the person's trial?  According to Florida's First District Court of Appeal, the answer is no. 

          In the case of Bartlett v. State of Florida, Laurie Lynn Bartlett was charged with second-degree murder for killing her boyfriend with a knife.  At her trial, the lead detective was allowed to testify that before he arrested Ms. Bartlett, he ruled out the possibility that she stabbed her boyfriend in self-defense.  Bartlett was ultimately convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison.

          Bartlett appealed her conviction arguing that the detective should not have been allowed to express his belief to the jury that she did not act in self-defense.  The appellate court agreed and reversed her conviction.  The court stated that although Florida law requires the police to decide whether the force used by someone was unlawful before arresting that person, the police are not allowed to testify about that finding to a jury precisely because the final decision as to whether someone acted in self-defense is to be made by a jury, not by the police.  As the court of appeals stated, "[B]y allowing the [prosecutor's] questions and [the detective's] detailed answers on a matter within the realm of an ordinary juror's knowledge and understanding, the trial [judge] improperly invaded the province of the jury as the fact-finder and allowed the detective to serve as a fact-finder . . . by determining that self-defense was not a viable defense for [Bartlett]." 

          The appellate court went on to state that although the detective was allowed to testify about what he actually saw when he arrived at the scene of the stabbing (for example, a knife, blood, the boyfriend's wounds), he should not have been allowed to express his opinion about whether Bartlett stabbed her boyfriend in self-defense.  That particular issue was for the jury--and the jury alone--to decide.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Several Florida cases in which defendants claimed self-defense have been overturned on appeal because the trial judge incorrectly read to the jury what is sometimes referred to as a forcible-felony jury instruction.  According to this particular jury instruction, a defendant may not claim that he acted in self-defense if he did so while "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony."

          Perhaps an example taken from the Florida Supreme Court case of Martinez v. State of Florida would help to clarify this rather difficult jury instruction. 

          Suppose a person were to go into a convenience store and point a knife at the clerk while demanding all of the money in the cash register.  As the clerk is emptying the register, a customer approaches the robber from behind and hits him on the head with a bottle.  The robber then turns around and stabs the customer.

          At his trial, the robber would not be allowed to argue that he stabbed the customer in self-defense because the Florida Legislature has decided that a person who is committing a separate and independent forcible felony (in this particular example, the forcible felony of robbery), is not entitled to use deadly force  (which Florida law defines as "force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.")  That is to say, because the crime of robbery is a separate and independent forcible felony, the trial judge should read to the jury the forcible-felony jury instruction which would result in the defendant not being able to argue to the jury that he stabbed the customer in self-defense.

         Where trial judges sometimes get into trouble on appeal is when they read to the jury the forcible-felony jury instruction even though the person on trial is not accused of having committed a separate and independent forcible felony.  Perhaps another example from the same Martinez case would help to explain what I mean.

          In Martinez, the defendant was charged with committing the two crimes of attempted premeditated murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for the single act of stabbing his girlfriend.  At his trial, one of the defenses that Martinez relied upon for both crimes was that of self-defense.  However, the trial judge read to the jury the forcible-felony jury instruction even though Martinez was not charged with a separate and independent forcible felony.  The result was that the forcible-felony jury instruction essentially negated Martinez' self-defense claim.

          On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that although the trial judge in Martinez' case erred when he read the forcible-felony instruction to the jury, the case would not be reversed because Mr. Martinez' lawyer did not object when the judge read that particular instruction at trial.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          It is the law in Florida that when a person accused of committing a crime claims that he acted in self-defense, the case should be dismissed by the trial judge when the prosecution's evidence is legally insufficient to rebut the claim of self-defense.

          For example, in the case of G.T.J. v. State of Florida the undisputed evidence showed:

          1.  G.T.J. was outside an apartment occupied by two individuals named Hernandes and Miranda;

          2.  G.T.J. and a friend of his got into a fight with Hernandes and Miranda;

          3.  Hernandes and Miranda chased G.T.J.;

          4.  G.T.J. turned and struck one of the men who was chasing him in the face with a stick; and

          5.  G.T.J. swung his belt at both Hernandes and Miranda but missed.

          In deciding that the trial judge should have dismissed this case, the appellate court noted that G.T.J. presented unrebutted testimony that:

          a.  He swung a rod at Hernandes and Miranda only after Hernandes first swung a knife at him and then proceeded to chase after G.T.J. while accompanied by Miranda; and

          b.  He swung his belt at the two men only after one of the men began choking him.

          The appellate court continued on by observing that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not rebut G.T.J.'s testimony regarding the violent, aggressive behavior of Hernandes and Miranda insofar as neither of the latter two individuals denied that Hernandes had threatened G.T.J. with a knife.  Nor did they deny that G.T.J. had been choked. 

          Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that trial judge should have granted G.T.J.'s request that his case be dismissed.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court held that a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment as did a prohibition against rendering any lawful gun in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

          The relevant facts in the Heller case are that Dick Heller was a District of Columbia special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center.  He applied to register a handgun that he wanted to keep at his home, but the District of Columbia denied his request.  Heller then filed a lawsuit in federal court in which he sought to prevent the District of Columbia from doing the following three things:

          1.  Enforcing a ban on the registration of handguns;

          2.  Enforcing a licensing requirement that prohibited the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license; and 

          3.  Enforcing a trigger-lock requirement that prohibited using an operable firearm within a home.                                                                                                                  

          Although the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Officer Heller, it nevertheless pointed out that the Second Amendment, like most constitutional rights, does have its limits.  For example, the Court noted that the law has long prohibited such things as:

• concealed firearms
• the possession of guns by convicted felons
• the possession of guns by mentally-ill individuals
• carrying guns in places like schools and government buildings
• the commercial sale of firearms without restriction

         If one looks today at the website for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, one sees that the following eight restrictions apply to anyone who is currently attempting to register a firearm in the District of Columbia:

          1.  He cannot have been convicted of a crime of violence or have any prior weapons offenses; 

          2.  He cannot currently be under indictment for a crime of violence or weapons offense;
 

          3.  He cannot have been convicted within the past five years of a narcotics or dangerous drug offense, threats to do bodily harm, or assault;
 

          4.  He cannot have been found not guilty of any criminal charge by reason of insanity or adjudicated as a chronic alcoholic by any court within the past five years;
 

          5.  He cannot have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution within the past five years;
 

          6.  He cannot suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for that individual to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly;
 

          7.  He cannot have been found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being;

          8.  She cannot have been convicted of any felony or prostitution-related offense.

          Additionally, this website states that properly registering a gun still does not permit a person to carry that gun outside her home or place of business except to move it for a lawful recreational purpose.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link