Hidden Bias in Florida Stand Your Ground: Physical vs. Mental Conditions

September 5, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is one of the state’s most widely-known statutes. Under Fla. Stat. 776.012 and 776.032, someone may use or threaten to use force (including deadly force) if it is a reasonable and proportional response to defend themselves, others, or prevent commission of a forcible felony (e.g. aggravated battery, sexual battery, robbery).

But there is a fascinating part of how Florida courts have applied this law that is not frequently discussed. In assessing whether a defendant’s use of force was reasonable, courts are likely to consider physical maladies (e.g. the presence of a disease or condition that renders the defendant especially vulnerable to harm if attacked). 

Those same courts are significantly less likely to consider mental conditions (including the presence of PTSD) as grounds for a successful Stand Your Ground defense if the use of force would otherwise not have been reasonable. This blog will explore the case law surrounding this underexplored Stand Your Ground issue in Florida.

Before getting into this discussion, it is first important to understand what Florida’s Stand Your Ground law actually is (and isn’t). The following are key components of the law:

• No duty to retreat: A person may use force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm (distinct from mere bruises, per Wheeler v. State, 203 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)), or prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The law does not require retreating first.
• Presumption of reasonableness in homes/vehicles: The law presumes that if someone unlawfully enters a dwelling, residence or unoccupied vehicle, that someone who uses force against them (including deadly force) had reasonable fear of imminent harm.
• Not unlimited: The presumption of reasonableness does not apply if the person is a lawful resident, has a legal right to be in that place, or is a law enforcement officer engaged in the execution of a legal duty.
• Use of non-deadly force: Permitted if this is reasonably necessary to protect against unlawful force of any sort (as long as someone was not the aggressor).
• Immunity: If the use of force is found to be justified at a pretrial immunity hearing (Fla. Stat. 776.032), the defendant cannot be held civilly or criminally liable. At a pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant must allege facts establishing a prima facie showing of lawful use of force. If this is done and the State fails to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, charges must be dismissed. Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
• Burden of proof: The burden of proof is on the prosecution at the immunity hearing to disprove lawful use of force by clear and convincing evidence – if a defendant first makes a prima facie showing of permissible use of force. Even if the charges proceed to trial, the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are multiple exceptions to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that prevent a defense under the statute from succeeding. These include:

• Someone provoked the encounter (e.g. B breaks into someone’s house and shoots the lawful resident when they point a gun at B – B cannot claim Stand Your Ground)
• Engagement in criminal activity: If someone is engaged in illegal activity at the time of the offense, Stand Your Ground does not apply (possible exception to this is if the only unlawful activity is illegally possessing the firearm used, per Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2013))
• The person was in a place that had no lawful right to be when they used the force
• The person used the force against a law enforcement officer who was performing official duties 

In a Stand Your Ground, any lawful use of force must be objectively reasonable. This means that a reasonable and prudent person, if faced with the same facts and circumstances known to the defendant at the time the force was used, would have been legally justified in using the force the defendant did (Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)).

This intuitively makes sense. If use of force only had to be “subjectively reasonable,” it would essentially prevent the prosecution of anyone so long as they personally thought they were right to use force. 

However, the “reasonable person” standard in Stand Your Ground cases often has intriguing applications in practice. One of these is the difference between how Florida’s courts treat physical versus mental conditions in finding that the use of force was justified (or unjustified) by Stand Your Ground. State v. Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Cowins v. State, 393 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).

This plays an especially significant role in pretrial immunity hearings. As the question of whether a defendant receives pretrial immunity (charges dismissed, no civil liability) in a Stand Your Ground defense case is a question for the court (judge) rather than the jury, a corpus of case law exists on the issue of when force is or is not legally justified.

Courts have found that in circumstances where the use of deadly force may otherwise have not been justified, a defendant’s physical condition making them particularly vulnerable to the threat that existed before they used the force can play a role in evaluating reasonableness. State v. Quevedo, 357 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

In Quevedo, the appellee had a condition that caused him profuse bleeding if he was physically harmed in a manner sufficient to draw blood (Von Willebrand disease). Quevedo and the alleged victim exchanged a series of insults before the victim approached Quevedo – indicating that he would punch him in the mouth.

Quevedo allegedly shot the man and was charged. At a pretrial immunity hearing, the State argued the threat by the alleged victim could not have justified deadly force, as a potential punch in the mouth was not something that could have been reasonably responded to with deadly force.

But the 3rd District Court of Appeal held in Quevedo’s favor, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the charges. The court noted that the “reasonable person” standard required determining whether a reasonable and prudent person in the same situation as Quevedo himself would have reasonably responded with deadly force.

The court noted that the alleged victim was significantly larger, heavier, and younger than Quevedo. The court also argued that Quevedo’s physical condition (bleeding disease) arguably made it reasonable for him to view the escalation as likely to cause him death or serious bodily harm if he did not use deadly force.

However, the 4th District Court of Appeal came out differently when the question centered around the defendant’s mental condition – in that case, PTSD. Cowins v. State, 393 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). In that case, Cowins sought to introduce expert testimony that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which led to a heightened perception of danger.

The trial court excluded the expert testimony and denied Cowins pretrial immunity. The 4th DCA agreed – holding (in line with the 2nd DCA’s Oquendo v. State decision) that whether Cowins had PTSD was not relevant to assessing whether his use of force was objectively reasonable. 

In 2000, the 1st District Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. State v. Mizell, 773 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) The 1st DCA ruled PTSD-related expert testimony is relevant in self-defense cases because it may inform how the situation appeared to the defendant when he acted, which may have made their actions objectively reasonable under the circumstances. 

But the 1st DCA is in the minority – as two other District Courts of Appeal have come to the opposite conclusion in recent years. Given this trend, it is clear that Florida’s courts consider physical factors (e.g. size of the defendant/victim, diseases) in evaluating a Stand Your Ground claim – but not the presence of mental illness.

This seems to be because physical conditions are quantifiable, whereas it is not entirely clear how much someone’s mental condition (such as PTSD) truly impacts their judgment. Florida’s courts are drawing the conclusion that considering mental illness as part of the “objective” Stand Your Ground standard would essentially lead to a backdoor adoption of a subjective standard.

Is this truly fair? Some may argue that under Mobley v. State, what matters is if the facts and the circumstances as they appeared at the time to the defendant justified the use of force. If this is the “objective standard,” it seems reasonable to reach the conclusion that mental conditions such as PTSD should be considered.

On the other hand, how far could a consideration of mental illness go? IfA was diagnosed with schizophrenia and killed an innocent passerby, B, because they believed B was a threat, should courts consider what A was “experiencing at the time” in finding the killing was justifiable? Most people would likely say no.

Given this analysis, it is understandable why Florida’s courts prioritize considering physical but not mental conditions of a defendant when evaluating whether their use of force was reasonable under Stand Your Ground. However, there are edge cases (e.g. people threatened with violence who suffer from PTSD) that cut to the heart of this debate. 

Following Oquendo v. State, the Florida Supreme Court is set to take up the issue of whether PTSD evidence can be (or must be) considered in Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearings. This ruling will have a major impact on the judicial landscape surrounding this law.

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