Major FL Court Finds Murder Defendant Entitled to Stand Your Ground Immunity in New Ruling

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal concluded that a defendant charged with second-degree murder was immune from criminal prosecution, as the State failed to establish that he was not acting in self-defense when he shot and killed the alleged victim.

• CASE: Spencer v. State, 419 So.3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) 
• Charge(s): Second-Degree Murder
• Outcome: Case DISMISSED pursuant to Stand Your Ground law, as the State could not prove the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

In Florida, Stand Your Ground is one of the most frequently discussed state laws, but it is often misunderstood. Stand Your Ground (Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, 776.041) entitles a defendant to pretrial immunity from criminal or civil liability arising from a use or threatened use of deadly or nondeadly force that is legally justified. For more, click here.

Perhaps the most common question when discussing Stand Your Ground is – when is the use or threatened use of force justified under Florida law, so as to warrant pretrial immunity under the law? The answer to this depends on if the defendant used or threatened to use deadly force, or nondeadly force. 

Under Stand Your Ground, someone is legally permitted to use or threaten to use deadly force if they are in a place they have a lawful right to be, and either of the following are true:

• The defendant reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others, and use or threatened use of deadly force is a reasonable and proportional response to the perceived threat
• The defendant reasonably believes that use or threatened use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

To learn more about what constitutes deadly force (as opposed to nondeadly force) in Florida, click here. For more on forcible felonies (e.g. what qualifies as a forcible felony under state law), click here.

Someone’s use or threatened use of nondeadly force is protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law if the use or threatened use of nondeadly force was reasonable and proportional to prevent imminent bodily harm to themselves, others, or damage to property (e.g. if the victim appeared to be about to use unlawful force). For more, click here.

If a defendant believes they were acting reasonably and proportionally in self-defense, defense of others or in defense of property, they may file a motion to dismiss the charge(s) (citing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law). After such a motion is filed, a pretrial immunity hearing will be held to evaluate it (e.g. the judge will weigh whether to grant or deny the motion). For more, click here.

At the pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant must first make a prima facie case that their use or threatened use of force was permissible under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. This requires the defendant to allege facts with at least some evidentiary support that would give the defendant immunity under Stand Your Ground. Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

Once that prima facie showing of entitlement to immunity occurs, the burden shifts to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense, defense of others, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (in cases involving deadly force). If the State fails, the charge(s) against the defendant must be dismissed before trial.

Even if the State meets this burden at the pretrial immunity hearing, filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law allows the defendant to argue this defense to the jury (e.g. at trial). 

There, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use or threatened use of force was not protected by Stand Your Ground. State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) 

A key aspect of claiming Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity in Florida is the fact that this opens the door for a defendant to file a writ of prohibition if the trial judge denies the motion and allows the charge(s) to proceed to trial. A writ of prohibition urges a Florida District Court of Appeal to reverse the trial judge and dismiss the charge(s) against the defendant.

If a trial judge’s decision to deny a defendant’s Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity motion is supported by competent, substantial evidence (e.g. if the judge could reasonably conclude that the State met its burden), appellate courts must affirm the trial judge’s ruling and allow the case to proceed to trial. Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

But if the judge’s ruling is not supported by competent and substantial evidence – and it appears clear that the State did not prove the defendant’s use of force was unjustified – a District Court of Appeal must reverse the judge’s finding and grant the defendant pretrial immunity. Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

In a recent case heard by Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida), a defendant was charged with second-degree murder. Before trial, he moved for immunity from prosecution pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – arguing his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances. 

The trial judge disagreed, denying the defendant’s Stand Your Ground claim after concluding the State proved by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant was not reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury when the victim was fatally shot.

The defendant filed a writ of prohibition to the 4th DCA, urging the 4th DCA to reverse the trial judge’s ruling and dismiss the second-degree murder charge. The 4th DCA agreed with him and did so in a major new decision.

Let’s examine that case – Spencer v. State, 419 So.3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) – and analyze what it means for defendants in Florida claiming Stand Your Ground immunity.

KEY CASE: Spencer v. State, 419 So.3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) 

In Spencer, the defendant (Spencer) was charged with second-degree murder after he shot the alleged victim. He claimed Stand Your Ground immunity and a pretrial hearing was held – but Spencer’s motion to dismiss was ultimately denied. That prompted his appeal. According to the 4th DCA:

“The relevant facts are generally undisputed. The shooting occurred at a gated parking lot where the defendant, the victim, and other men worked on cars. Prior to the shooting, the victim had threatened the defendant and had been antagonistic toward other men while at the lot. The incident was captured by a surveillance camera near the parking lot. On the day of the shooting, the defendant arrived at the parking lot, parked outside, and walked in through the gate. The victim arrived shortly thereafter and demanded the defendant open the gate so he could pull his car into the lot. The defendant did not open the gate and continued to walk into the lot. The victim began shouting at the defendant and continued to yell at him from his CAR repeatedly threatening to “whoop his ass.”” 

“When the defendant was about fifty feet into the parking lot, the victim got out of his car and started quickly walking toward the defendant in an aggressive manner. As he got closer to the defendant, the victim quickened his pace and placed his hands on his front pocket. The defendant saw the victim aggressively approaching him. When the victim was within about six feet of the defendant, the defendant drew his gun from behind his back and fired one shot at the victim. The victim turned and ran back toward his car. The defendant followed the victim with his gun drawn. As soon as the victim fell to the ground, the defendant unloaded his gun and placed it on the hood of a nearby car. The defendant called 911 less than a minute after the shooting. When the police arrived, they found the victim lying on the ground near his car. The defendant walked out through the gate with his hands up, appearing to be in shock. He said he shot the victim because the victim was threatening him.”

At the pretrial immunity hearing and when speaking to law enforcement, Spencer said he knew the victim to often carry a gun. Spencer testified that at first, he merely thought the victim was “talking trash.” 

But when the victim exited his vehicle and walked aggressively towards him, he grew extremely scared that he would be physically attacked and unable to defend himself. Spencer also worried that if he allowed the victim to get on top of him, the victim would take his gun and use it against him. 

Spencer also testified that he believed the victim may have been armed at the time, as he reached towards his pocket as he started towards Spencer. Spencer added that he considered the victim to be in “great shape” – Spencer, by contrast, suffered from various medical conditions. 

Though the State disputed almost none of what Spencer testified to, the trial judge ruled that the State overcame Spencer’s Stand Your Ground claim (e.g. disproved it) by clear and convincing evidence. According to the 4th DCA:

“The court found the defendant’s testimony generally credible, and it specifically credited his testimony that the victim was “continually approaching [him] in an aggressive manner.” But the surveillance video showed the defendant “facing [the victim] that entire time.” Based on that finding, the trial court ruled the state had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was not entitled to immunity because he did not have an objectively reasonable belief, specifically at the time of the shooting, that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. This prohibition petition followed.”

Spencer argued to the 4th DCA that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by finding the State met its burden of proof. He urged the 4th DCA to reverse the trial judge’s ruling and dismiss the second-degree murder charge against him.

The 4th DCA agreed, finding that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the conclusion that the State met its burden of proof. The 4th DCA wrote:

“Here, the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the state met its burden of proof. The defendant’s testimony was largely unrefuted, and the trial court found the defendant to be credible. The trial court specifically credited the defendant’s testimony that the victim got out of his car and aggressively approached the defendant after repeatedly threatening to “whoop his ass.” Rather than simply open the gate and drive into the lot, the victim got out of his car and aggressively approached the defendant, yelling at him. The victim had threatened the defendant before and was known to carry a gun. As the victim approached, he moved his hand near his front pocket. Fearing for his life, the defendant drew his gun and shot the victim.”

“The state failed to the meet its statutorily imposed higher burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use of deadly force was not justified. The trial court reached the opposite conclusion solely because the defendant turned around soon after the victim got out of his car. We are mandated to follow the law as dictated by our legislature. Under existing law, the defendant did not have a duty to retreat, warn the victim that he had a gun, or otherwise try to avoid or defuse the threat posed.”

In essence, the 4th DCA wrote that Spencer had no “duty” to try to “deescalate” before pulling his gun and firing. The only relevant question was whether he reasonably believed (given the circumstances) he was at risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. As the State did not prove Spencer acted unreasonably by clear and convincing evidence, he was entitled to immunity.

Judge Forst authored a concurring opinion in the case, expressing hesitancy about the breadth of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – but agreeing with the majority’s conclusion that Spencer was entitled to immunity. Judge Forst wrote:

“Brandon Bell was shot and killed by defendant Ivin Spencer. Bell was unarmed at the time. … Per our opinion, Spencer will not be tried for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, or any other count stemming from his shooting Bell. Nonetheless, I concur in the majority opinion as I am compelled to conclude that our current applicable SYG “deadly force” statutes (§§ 776.012(2), 776.032(1), Fla. Stat. (2021)) dictate this result. I write specially to detail the “circumstances” that contributed to this holding and to highlight some (perhaps) unintended consequences.”

“Noteworthy: The defense provided statements from Spencer and two others who had heard Bell threaten to harm Spencer, but no evidence shows that Bell had ever physically assaulted Spencer or anyone else. … Also noteworthy: Bell didn’t declare that he was going to kill or seriously hurt Spencer. Instead, Bell threatened harm—by beating, “whooping,” and kicking—Spencer’s “ass.” … Lastly noteworthy: In this case, the only victim of a SYG shooting was the perceived assailant../”

“Bell overreacted to Spencer not opening the gate as Bell’s vehicle approached. Bell’s past threats, his reputation, his size/fitness relative to Spencer, and his new threats as he purposefully walked toward Spencer combined to create a reasonable belief on Spencer’s part that deadly force was necessary to prevent the objectively real possibility of great bodily harm, death, or a forcible felony. Whether one can argue, putting aside the SYG statutes and caselaw, that firing a lethal shot at an unarmed individual with no warning is itself an overreaction, is of no consequence in a court of law. “Judges are required to follow the law and apply it fairly and objectively to all who appear before them. No judge is permitted to substitute his concept of what the law ought to be for what the law actually is.””

Judge Forst essentially indicated that he personally disagreed with the outcome in the case on a policy level – but that legally, it was clear Spencer was entitled to immunity under Stand Your Ground.

In sum, Spencer v. State, 419 So.3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) marks a significant, pro-defense development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Stand Your Ground immunity. The 4th DCA wrote that:

• Spencer reasonably believed he was facing a threat of death or serious bodily injury
• The State failed to refute this by clear and convincing evidence – so the trial judge was required to grant Spencer’s motion to dismiss 
• Since the trial judge failed to do so, the 4th DCA reversed the trial judge’s ruling, tossing out the second-degree murder charge against Spencer

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Spencer v. State, 419 So.3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), as it shows Florida appellate courts will apply Stand Your Ground “faithfully” even when it seems that in hindsight, the use of force may have been “excessive” in the eyes of some judges.

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