Florida Supreme Court Rules PTSD Evidence Admissible in Stand Your Ground Cases

October 9, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

In Oquendo v. State, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that PTSD and similar mental health evidence may be admissible to establish the reason for someone’s fear of violence that preceded their use of force. 

For years, Florida’s District Courts of Appeal have been in conflict regarding a key aspect of the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Now, that conflict has been resolved by the Florida Supreme Court in a major new ruling: Oquendo v. State, (October 9, 2025).

The issue before the Court was whether evidence of Oquendo’s PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) was admissible to establish the validity of his subjective fear that his life was in danger. The Court held that even though the trial court permissibly stopped an expert testifying about this in Oquendo’s case, PTSD evidence can be used in a Stand Your Ground argument.

Oquendo’s case got to the Florida Supreme Court after he appealed from Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area). Oquendo was convicted of manslaughter stemming from an altercation outside a bar, during which he shot and killed a victim while the victim was in his car.

Oquendo sought to have an expert witness testify at trial that he suffered from PTSD. Because of his PTSD, Oquendo argued, he was more likely to resort to force even if someone without the condition would not have necessarily perceived a deadly threat. According to Oquendo, his PTSD was relevant evidence.

The trial court denied Oquendo the opportunity to present the expert testimony. The judge found that under Stand Your Ground (which Oquendo was claiming as a defense), PTSD and similar “mental state” evidence is not relevant. This is because the reasonableness of use of force under Stand Your Ground is evaluated by an “objective standard.”

In other words, the court found that even if Oquendo was more likely to think that violence was necessary due to PTSD, this could not be used to show he acted “reasonably.” Moreover, the judge found that because Oquendo was arguing that the objective circumstances required him to act in self-defense, the PTSD evidence was not actually relevant to the case.

Oquendo was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced, without the jury ever hearing from the expert regarding his PTSD. On appeal to the 2nd DCA, Oquendo argued the expert’s testimony was erroneously kept from the jury. 

Oquendo cited State v. Mizell, 773 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which held PTSD evidence may be considered in self-defense cases for purposes of informing how the situation appeared to a defendant at the time they used force. But the 2nd DCA ruled against him, certifying conflict with Mizell (Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal).

The 2nd DCA reasoned that Oquendo was hoping to introduce information about his PTSD as “diminished capacity” evidence, which is barred in such cases. This is a class of evidence used to argue that a defendant was not intelligent enough, under the influence, or otherwise incapable of committing the charged crime due to their personal circumstances. Oquendo v. State, 357 So.3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)

The 2nd DCA ruled that such evidence is impermissible in Stand Your Ground cases because the law requires someone to act “objectively reasonably” given the circumstances (as the trial judge noted). As a result, someone cannot use a mental condition (e.g. PTSD) to argue that they felt it necessary to use force, when it would otherwise be “objectively” unreasonable. 

Because the 2nd DCA certified conflict with the 1st DCA (Mizell), the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oquendo. The Court issued a landmark decision on October 9, 2025, ruling against Oquendo himself (affirming the verdict) but holding for the first time that the Stand Your Ground law has both a “subjective” and “objective” component. 

The Court concluded that the 2nd DCA was correct in upholding the trial judge’s ruling in Oquendo’s case, which barred the introduction of PTSD evidence via the expert. The Court stated that by virtue of Oquendo’s account regarding what happened, his PTSD was not relevant and would effectively function as “diminished capacity evidence.”

But the Court disapproved the 2nd DCA’s broader ruling that PTSD and other mental health evidence is inadmissible when Stand Your Ground is claimed. The Florida Supreme Court held that in some cases, such evidence can be admitted to support a defendant’s argument that they were subjectively in fear.

Again, this is the first time Florida’s Supreme Court has recognized the Stand Your Ground law has two components. They are:

• Subjective component: Whether the defendant was personally in fear
• Objective component: Whether the use of force was an objectively reasonable response to the situation perceived by the defendant – specifically, whether the force used was reasonable and proportional to the threat faced

The Court did not rule that someone having PTSD lets them “off the hook.” The Court only ruled that evidence of PTSD or similar conditions that may have magnified the defendant’s personal fear of what was occurring are not categorically barred from being admitted at trial – which was held by the 2nd DCA.

The Court reasoned that allowing PTSD evidence in certain circumstances (when it is directly relevant to the use of force) is not the same as a diminished capacity or insanity defense. 

This is because evidence of the defendant’s mental condition cannot automatically absolve them of blame for the alleged crime. Their use of force must have still been objectively reasonable, given their subjective perception of what was occurring. 

The Court did not “open the floodgates” to PTSD and other mental health evidence being used as a “get out of jail free card.” Any expert testimony as to a defendant’s PTSD or similar mental condition must be scientifically reliable and have a clear link to how it may have impacted the defendant’s perception of what was occurring prior to their use of force.

Such expert testimony, barred by the 2nd DCA, can now be allowed into evidence by judges. The Florida Supreme Court made clear that like with all scientific evidence at trial, judges will be functioning as “gatekeepers” to ensure that testimony offered as to a defendant’s PTSD or other relevant condition is reliable, relevant, and tethered to the facts of the case.

Again, the Court emphasized in Oquendo that there must be a clear link between the condition suffered by the defendant, how it influenced the defendant’s understanding of what was going on, and the actions they took. Generic testimony like “the defendant has PTSD” will almost certainly be insufficient to be used at trial.

But in some cases, the exclusion of expert testimony on PTSD and similar mental health issues may constitute reversible error. This is especially likely if there is a clear nexus between the defendant’s mental illness and what occurred, like in Mizell.

It is important to note that PTSD and similar mental health evidence are only relevant to proving the “subjective” prong of a Stand Your Ground claim. The presence of such a condition cannot be used to argue that a defendant’s use of force was objectively reasonable. It can only be used to show that the condition made the defendant particularly prone to be in fear.

Once that “reasonable fear” is established (including via the use of mental health evidence), a defendant’s use of force must still be objectively reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. 

How will the Oquendo decision impact Stand Your Ground going forward? It is not yet clear. But there are a few logical guesses that can be made.

First, it is likely that Florida will see a significant increase in defendants attempting to introduce mental health evidence (e.g. a PTSD diagnosis) when arguing Stand Your Ground. This is likely to require separate hearings, and a judge will evaluate this “scientific evidence” using the same admissibility framework as other expert testimony (Fla. Stat. 90.702).

It is also possible that if such evidence is introduced at Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearings, the State may have a more difficult time proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a defendant’s use of force was not protected by Florida law – as is required to proceed to a jury trial.

If PTSD or other mental health evidence can be introduced even at this stage of the proceedings, it may make it easier for the defendant to make a prima facie self-defense claim. A condition like PTSD could factor into the trial judge finding the defendant was personally in fear and acted reasonably in line with their subjective perception.

Finally, PTSD or other mental health evidence may have an impact on jury verdicts. If expert testimony revealing the connection between a defendant’s mental condition and their subjective perception of what was happening is introduced, the jury may consider this in finding that the defendant acted in an objectively reasonable fashion given that perception.

This evidence was barred entirely from being heard by juries before the Florida Supreme Court’s Oquendo decision. But now that such evidence is admissible statewide, many defendants who were previously unable to argue their actions were objectively reasonable in light of PTSD may now be permitted to do so.

In sum, Oquendo v. State is a landmark Florida Supreme Court decision allowing for the introduction of mental health evidence to support a Stand Your Ground defense. However, these claims must be scientifically supported. 

The defendant must actually have been suffering from the condition at the time, and expert testimony must establish how the condition may have impacted the defendant’s experience of what was occurring in a manner that made his use of force objectively reasonable.

Importantly, the presence of a condition itself (e.g. PTSD) is not proof the defendant’s use of force was objectively reasonable. But it can be used to inform the judge or jury how they may have been thinking at the time, which could be relevant evidence in a Stand Your Ground claim.

If someone is concerned about a case involving a Stand Your Ground defense or is seeking to argue Stand Your Ground, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share