Major FL Court Discusses What Constitutes ‘Prima Facie’ Immunity Showing in Stand Your Ground Hearing

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Case Summary

In a major case, Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal defined what constitutes a prima facie showing of Stand Your Ground immunity, which must be offered by the defendant before the burden shifts to the State to prove the use or threatened use of force was not legally protected.

• CASE: Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
• Charge(s): Second-Degree Murder
• Outcome: Case DISMISSED, as the State was unable to rebut the defendant’s prima facie claim of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Stand Your Ground Law in Florida

In Florida, Stand Your Ground (Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, 776.041) acts as a total defense to criminal charges if someone lawfully uses (or threatens to use) either nondeadly or deadly force in defense of themselves, others, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Defendants in Florida frequently rely upon Stand Your Ground to fight against various criminal charges. These may include, but are not limited to:

• Murder and attempted murder
• Felony battery
• Manslaughter
• Kidnapping 
• Assault and aggravated assault
• Battery and aggravated battery

Under Stand Your Ground someone may use or threaten to use deadly or nondeadly force if this is objectively reasonable and proportional given their perceptions at the time the force is used or threatened. Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

Deadly force if considered to be reasonable and proportional if:

• By using or threatening the deadly force, the defendant was protecting themselves from an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm (distinguishable from “mere bruises”)
• By using  or threatening the deadly force, the defendant was protecting another person from an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to that person
• By using or threatening the deadly force, the defendant was preventing the imminent commission of a forcible felony (e.g. armed burglary, robbery, sexual battery)

A defendant’s use or threatened use of nondeadly force is protected under Stand Your Ground if the use or threatened use of nondeadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of force against a defendant, another person, or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

Note: Stand You Ground applies only if a defendant had a lawful right to be where the force was used or threatened and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity. For more, click here.

If someone believes their use or threatened use of deadly or nondeadly force entitles them to pretrial immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, they may file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charges. In the event this occurs, a pretrial immunity hearing will be held. Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

At the pretrial immunity hearing, if a defendant makes a prima facie showing of a justified use or threatened use of force, the burden shifts to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use or threatened use of force was not justified (not protected by the Stand Your Ground law). Freeman v. State, 373 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

If the State fails to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was not acting in lawful self-defense, defense of others or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (once a prima facie showing of justified force/threatened force is made), the trial judge must dismiss the defendant’s charge(s) pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law.

If a judge denies a defendant’s motion to dismiss at the pretrial immunity hearing (e.g. finds that the State met their burden/the defendant did not make a prima facie showing of a lawful use of force/threatened force), not all hope is lost. 

This is because the defendant can still argue they were acting in accordance with Florida’s Stand Your Ground law at trial (e.g. to the jury). There, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting lawfully when the force or threatened use of force occurred. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

Moreover, filing a pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Stand Your Ground allows a defendant to file a writ of prohibition if the trial judge denies it. A writ of prohibition urges an appellate court (Florida District Court of Appeal) to reverse the trial judge’s finding and grant immunity to the defendant under the Stand Your Ground law.

Sometimes, a judge will deny a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss. Typically, this is because the State met the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act lawfully in allegedly using or threatening the force. 

But occasionally, a trial judge will deny pretrial immunity to a defendant because the defendant failed to make a prima facie (on its face) showing that they acted in lawful self-defense, defense of others or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (if deadly force was used or threatened. This is less common – as a prima facie case is quite a low bar.

This raises a key question – what even is a prima facie showing of a lawful use of force? How is it defined? Even to many individuals familiar with the Stand Your Ground law, it is unclear how “convincing” the defendant’s claim of a protected use/threatened use of force must be before the burden or proof shifts to the State.

Thankfully, one Florida court (Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal) formally defined this in a major Stand Your Ground case – clarifying how much the defendant truly has to “prove” before the State must rebut their self-defense/defense of others/prevention of a forcible felony claim by clear and convincing evidence.

Let’s take a look at that case – Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) – and what it means for defendants in Florida claiming Stand Your Ground immunity.

KEY CASE: Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

In Jefferson, the defendant (Jefferson) claimed Stand Your Ground immunity in a second-degree murder case arising from a dispute with his roommate. A hearing was held – and the trial judge denied the defendant’s SYG claim (requiring that the case proceed to trial).

Jefferson alleged in his motion to dismiss that he frequently argued with his roommate under the influence of alcohol, and that during the arguments, his roommate regularly armed himself with a bat and threatened to kill Jefferson. 

The day of the incident, Jefferson alleged that he awoke to the victim attempting to steal money from him. This triggered a physical struggle, during which both men reached for a knife. The pair struggled over the knife before moving into the living room area – where the victim said he would throw boiling hot tea at Jefferson.

Eventually, the men made their way to the backyard before both lost their balance. While on the ground, Jefferson gained control of the knife and stabbed the victim, causing his death. Jefferson claimed he immediately flagged down several people to call law enforcement and an ambulance. 

According to Jefferson, he believed if he had not killed the victim, the victim would have killed him. In his motion to dismiss (e.g. motion for pretrial immunity pursuant to SYG), he included the following detail:

“The [S]tate will not be able to present any witnesses to the altercation, as there are none. A video surveillance tape will be presented that shows the very end of the altercation as the two of them spill out of the back door of the house, but nothing in regards to the issue of self-defense is proven by the video. The only facts that the [S]tate will be able to prove are that [the roommate] is in fact dead and that [petitioner] is the one who killed him. Because the [S]tate is not able to meet their burden of clear and convincing evidence, [petitioner] is entitled to immunity from prosecution and therefore the information in this case should be dismissed.”

Essentially, Jefferson argued that because he was the sole witness to events, his testimony would both create a prima facie showing of lawful self-defense and render the State unable to rebut his claims by clear and convincing evidence. As a result, Jefferson urged the trial judge to grant him pretrial immunity (e.g. dismiss the murder charge).

The State responded by claiming Jefferson’s motion to dismiss could not raise a prima facie case of lawful self-defense unless he testified at the pretrial immunity hearing. According to the 2nd DCA:

“The State responded that the filing of the motion to dismiss pursuant to section 776.032 put petitioner’s credibility at issue. Accordingly, the State asserted, petitioner must testify under oath and be subject to cross-examination by the State at an evidentiary hearing. This prompted the trial court to ask petitioner’s counsel the following question: “[I]f it’s the defendant who makes the assertion, why isn’t that a waiver of immunity in its cross-examination?”

However, Jefferson rejected the State’s argument. Jefferson noted that since 2017, a defendant has not been required to prove they have a valid immunity claim:

“Petitioner’s counsel explained that before section 776.032 was amended in 2017, the accused had the burden of proving his entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity at a hearing on the motion to dismiss. This burden, petitioner’s counsel explained, left many with a choice between a statutory right to immunity and a constitutional right against self-incrimination. According to petitioner’s counsel, by amending section 776.032 in 2017 to place the burden on the State “to overcome” a criminal defendant’s prima facie claim of immunity, the legislature eliminated a criminal defendant’s evidentiary burden to prove his entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity from criminal prosecution.”

Despite this fact, the judge sided with the State. The judge ruled that unless Jefferson testified at the Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing, he would not consider there to have been a prima facie case of lawful use of force made by the defense. This required automatic denial of the motion to dismiss. According to the 2nd DCA:

“Petitioner’s counsel responded that petitioner would not testify at the hearing and that he would rely on the four corners of the motion unless the State was prepared to present witnesses. The trial court subsequently denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss in a written order …”

The trial judge’s denial of Jefferson’s motion triggered Jefferson’s appeal to the 2nd DCA via a writ of prohibition. Jefferson argued the Stand Your Ground law did not require that he testify at the pretrial immunity hearing – as the burden of proof was on the State to rebut the self-defense claim he made in the motion.

The 2nd DCA agreed, reversing the trial judge (e.g. quashing the order denying the motion to dismiss) and remanding for a pretrial immunity hearing at which the State would have to rebut Jefferson’s claims by clear and convincing evidence.

The 2nd DCA turned to Black’s Law dictionary to define prima facie, for purposes of clarifying what a “prima facie claim” truly requires. The 2nd DCA wrote:

“Next, we address the type of claim that is yet to be proven: “a prima facie claim.” “Prima facie” is defined as “[s]ufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted; based on what seems to be true on first examination, even though it may be later proved to be untrue.” Prima facie, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also The American Heritage Dictionary, 1398 (5th ed. 2011) (defining “prima facie” as “[a]t first sight; before closer inspection”). So, the type of claim yet to be proven as true is one that, on first examination, is presumed to be true unless it is later disproved or rebutted. The phrase “prima facie claim,” then, is an assertion that, at first glance, is sufficient to establish a fact or right but is yet to be disproved or rebutted by someone. The State asserts that the person—here, the petitioner—asserting the yet to be proven immunity claim has the evidentiary burden to prove it. We need not look further than the text of section 776.032(4) to reject that interpretation. First, we have established that a “prima facie claim” is a fact or right that has yet to be disproven…”

“That is, in ordinary conversation, it is not sensible to conclude that to “raise” a prima facie claim, which is deemed true until it is disproved, means that the person raising the claim must also affirmatively prove the claim. The legislature did not say “prove.” Utilization of “raised,” coupled with the aforementioned ordinary meaning of “prima facie claim,” yields clear textual support that the legislature did not intend the person asserting Stand Your Ground immunity to first prove that prima facie claim of self-defense. Instead, the text indicates that the legislature intended that the person simply bring that yet to be disproven prima facie claim of self-defense to a pretrial immunity hearing for the trial judge to determine, at first glance, if all elements required to demonstrate the particular self-defense statute are present.”

In essence, the 2nd DCA concluded that the State (and trial judge) erroneously believed a prima facie claim required Jefferson to be cross-examined (e.g. so the veracity of Jefferson’s narrative could be adversarially tested).

However, none of this is required to make a prima facie showing of immunity. The judge must only determine if the facts outlined in a defendant’s motion for pretrial immunity (e.g. motion to dismiss) “meet all the elements” of a lawful use or threatened use of force (under SYG) “at first glance.” 

Once this occurs, the burden shifts to the State to disprove the defendant’s SYG claim by clear and convincing evidence. In Jefferson’s case, because he was the only witness to the incident, the 2nd DCA concluded that his motion to dismiss was a prima facie showing of lawful self-defense that shifted the burden to the State (regardless of if he testified at the pretrial immunity hearing):

“We are mindful that there will be situations where the accused is the only available witness to the events leading to an act that is claimed to be justifiable use of force. This may result in great difficultly for the State to overcome the accused’s prima facie claim by clear and convincing evidence. But our result here is mandated by the text of section 776.032(4) … Should our interpretation of the text of section 776.032(4) not reflect the legislature’s intent, it is up to the legislature to clarify its intent by amending the statute. Unless and until that occurs, courts are duty bound to carry out the legislative intent by mandating that the State bear the evidentiary burden of overcoming, by bringing forth clear and convincing evidence, an accused’s facially sufficient, prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution at a pretrial hearing. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order summarily denying the motion to dismiss.”

In sum, Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) marks a significant development in Florida case law on Stand Your Ground – and more specifically, what constitutes a prima facie showing of a lawful use (or threatened use) of force for purposes of shifting the burden of proof to the State at a pretrial immunity hearing. The 2nd DCA found that:

• The trial judge erred by ruling Jefferson had to testify and face cross-examination at the pretrial immunity hearing for a prima facie claim of lawful self-defense to be made
• Because Jefferson alleged facts in his motion to dismiss that indicated he lawfully used self-defense, this was sufficient to shift the burden to the State to disprove his claim by clear and convincing evidence
• As the trial judge erroneously denied Jefferson’s motion to dismiss solely because he did not want to testify at the hearing, the 2nd DCA reversed this and remanded the matter for a new hearing (at which the State had the burden of proof)

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), as it establishes that defendants only have to clear a “low bar” to make a prima facie showing of a lawful use or threatened use of force (pursuant to Stand Your Ground).

If someone is concerned about being charged with murder, manslaughter or a related offense, 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 criminal 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