Major FL Court Grants STAND YOUR GROUND Immunity for Woman Swatting Home Inspector’s Phone

April 10, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity, requiring the dismissal of a felony battery charge, when she swatted the phone out of the hand of a home inspector who entered her apartment through an elevator and began to take pictures without permission.

CASE: Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)

Charge(s): Felony Battery

Outcome: Stand Your Ground immunity GRANTED – Paese permissibly used nondeadly force to prevent tortious interference with her property.

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

Stand Your Ground also serves as a total defense to charges if a person uses (or threatens to use) nondeadly force because they reasonably believed this was necessary to prevent the imminent use of deadly or nondeadly force against themselves or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

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
• Kidnapping 
• Assault and aggravated assault
• Battery and aggravated battery
• Felony battery
• Manslaughter

Before we dive into Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), there are a few important things to know about Stand Your Ground:

• The law does not apply if a defendant was actively engaged in criminal activity at the time the force was used or threatened – with a possible exception of a felon in possession of a firearm (barred by Fla. Stat. 790.23). (Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2013))
• The law does not apply to an aggressor, provoker or initiator (e.g. someone starting the fight) UNLESS they announce to the victim that they are no longer using/threatening to use violence AND have attempted to retreat (and reasonably believe there is an imminent risk of death/serious bodily injury that they cannot retreat from any further)

It is important to note that although Stand Your Ground is (almost always) unavailable to those who initiate, aggress, or provoke, a defendant CAN still permissibly use or threaten to use force in defense of a THIRD PARTY.

The law only “narrows” when the defendant can use force in defense of themselves – NOT when they can use it in defense of third parties. If, for example, the defendant’s initiation results in the victim attacking an innocent third party, the defendant can permissibly use or threaten force to protect that third party. Bouie v. State, 292 So.3d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)

If someone believes their use or threatened use of force was protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law (deadly or nondeadly), an experienced and aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney may file a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis that the defendant is entitled to SYG immunity. This motion does not have to be sworn, unlike a 3.190(c)(4) motion.

In the event that such a motion is filed, a pretrial immunity hearing will occur. At the hearing, the defendant must first make a prima facie case that they are entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground law (e.g. that the case should not proceed to trial/be dismissed at the hearing).

A prima facie case does not require the defendant to present any evidence. It only requires that the defendant allege a specific set of facts that, if the State fails to refute by clear and convincing evidence, would make the use or threatened use of force justified under the Stand Your Ground law. Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) 

In the event that a defendant makes a prima facie case that they lawfully used or threatened to use deadly or nondeadly force, the burden shifts to the State to rebut this by clear and convincing evidence. If the State fails to disprove the defendant’s prima facie case, the charge(s) MUST BE DISMISSED as a matter of law. Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)

The advantage of filing a pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Stand Your Ground is two-fold, in that:

• Stand Your Ground can ALSO be argued at trial (even if the defense fails at the pretrial immunity hearing), where the State must prove the defendant did not act lawfully under SYG beyond a reasonable doubt
• If the trial judge denies the defendant’s SYG motion to dismiss, the defendant may appeal the trial judge’s order to the Florida District Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over the trial court

In the event that such an appeal takes place (through a writ of prohibition or writ of certiorari), the DCA has one of two options:

• Affirm the trial judge’s findings (if they conclude the trial judge did not err in applying the Stand Your Ground law to deny the defendant’s pretrial immunity claim)
• REVERSE the judge and grant the defendant pretrial immunity, resulting in the charge(s) being dismissed 

In one major Stand Your Ground case heard by Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast FL’s highest court), a deeply divided court ruled in FAVOR of a defendant after her SYG motion to dismiss was denied by the trial judge. 

Let’s look at that case – Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) – and discuss why it is a major win for defendants in Florida arguing they are entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity.

KEY CASE: Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) 

In Paese, the defendant (Paese) was arrested and charged with felony battery. According to the 4th DCA, the following facts were brought to light at the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing:

• Paese was a resident of a high-rise condo complex
• One of the condo’s elevators opens into Paese’s unit – but a special key fob must be used to access her residence
• The property manager notified Paese that unit inspections were going to occur soon, but did not say when
• Paese told the manager that she did not want anyone to come to her unit at the time
• Nevertheless, a group of four men (including a code inspector) retrieved the manager’s key fob, went to Paese’s unit in plain clothes, and took the elevator up to Paese’s unit
• They did not identify themselves when her elevator door opened
• The code inspector reached his arm through the open elevator doors (into the foyer area that led into Paese’s unit) and began to take pictures of Paese’s condo through the open elevator door 
• Paese threw a roll of duct tape at the tetrad of men and began yelling at them
• The code inspector continued to take pictures and none of the men attempted to press the elevator button to leave after Paese demanded they do so
• Paese approached the elevator and continued telling the men to leave
• When they again refused, Paese swatted the code inspector’s cell phone out of his hand, and it landed on the elevator floor
• The code inspector withdrew his arm from inside Paese’s unit and the elevator doors shut

Paese was ultimately arrested and charged with felony battery on the code inspector. She quickly filed a pretrial motion to dismiss, arguing that she was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity because the men in the elevator were “tortiously interfering” with her property. 

A hearing was scheduled and held, during which Paese testified that:

• She owned the “foyer” area into which the code inspector was reaching
• Her unit was only accessible with a special key fob 
• The men presumably used a key fob given to them by management in defiance of her request that nobody be sent to her unit at that time
• The men refused to leave despite repeated requests to do so

The trial judge denied Paese’s motion for pretrial immunity – but his reasoning was fallacious. The 4th DCA noted that although Paese used nondeadly force, the trial judge incorrectly ruled in favor of the State after performing a justifiable use of DEADLY FORCE analysis:

“In its denial of the motion to dismiss, the trial court analyzed Paese’s immunity claim as being based on an asserted right to use “deadly force” during the incident, rather than “non-deadly force” as she asserted in her motion. The trial court then concluded that deadly force could not be used by Paese because the code inspector “was not committing a forcible felony” during the encounter. However, Paese never asserted a right to use deadly force in support of her immunity claim, nor did the State present any proof that Paese ever used or threatened to use deadly force.”

Reviewing the trial judge’s order de novo, the 4th DCA found Paese WAS entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity. Concluding that Paese permissibly used nondeadly force to prevent “tortious interference” with her property, the 4th DCA wrote:

“This court recently held that section 776.031(1)’s plain language authorizes the use of non-deadly force to prevent or terminate the tortious or criminal interference with one’s personal property. … Here, it is undisputed that Paese did not consent to the property manager’s use of a master key fob to gain elevator access to her unit’s private landing and foyer for the purpose of allowing the code inspector to photograph the interior of her home.”

“The trial court erroneously concluded that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Paese was not legally entitled to immunity from prosecution when she used non-deadly force to prevent or terminate the tortious interference with her personal property after the four men used a master key fob, without authority, to override her exclusive access and intrude upon her private home while taking unwelcomed pictures of its interior, including the personal property inside her home. We emphasize that the force used by Paese was proportionate to her right, pursuant to section 776.031(1), to “prevent or terminate” the “tortious or criminal interference” with her “personal property.” 

Finding Paese’s use of nondeadly force (swatting the code inspector’s phone out of his hand) was “reasonable and proportional” given the circumstances, the 4th DCA majority finished:

“Had she employed force that was not reasonably tailored to simply prevent or terminate the tortious conduct, the disproportionate force would not have been justified. It was only after the four men in the elevator disregarded Paese’s multiple verbal requests to desist from tortiously interfering with her personal property, and depart from the private entry to her home, that she used a proportionate amount of force to prevent or terminate their unprivileged actions. We therefore issue the writ of prohibition directing the trial court to grant Paese’s motion to dismiss, thereby discharging her from further criminal prosecution on the felony battery charge.”

Judge Forst of the 4th DCA authored a specially concurring opinion, expressing agreement with the majority’s finding that Paese had the right to use “minimal” force to prevent the men from tortiously interfering with her property:

“Here, Paese used a minimal level of force, with no indication of an intent to cause pain or harm. She did not swing a bat or any other object, nor did she punch or bite or kick anybody. There is no claim that she threw the duct tape with the intent or ability to harm anybody (the defendant is named Paese, not Nolan Ryan or Sandy Koufax), or that her striking the hand of the individual taking photos/video had the force of a karate practitioner (it is undisputed that no injury was sustained by the purported victim). This minimal force employed here was proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances and the reversal opinion should not be read as justification for anything else. Thus, neither the dissent nor anyone else need “shudder to think about the situations to which the majority opinion will be applied in the future,” nor cause to question the majority’s “neutrality” or objectivity.”

The dissent referenced by Judge Forst is a scathing one authored by 4th DCA Judge Gross. Judge Gross disagreed with the majority (and Judge Forst) – believing the majority’s application of the Stand Your Ground law in Paese’s case departed from centuries of precedent. He wrote: 

“The majority opinion departs from hundreds of years of settled law and expands the reach of Stand Your Ground statutes to situations involving no threat of physical harm to persons and no “trespass, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property[.]” § 776.031(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) … The majority opinion mischaracterizes the facts and misapplies the law.”

“First, the elevator itself was not part of the defendant’s condominium unit and was not in the defendant’s possession, but rather was a common element for which the defendant did not have exclusive access. Second, the four men did not gain entry or access to the defendant’s condominium unit itself, nor did the defendant have a reasonable belief that they were attempting to do so. Third, the record does not support the majority’s contention that the property manager was “not legally entitled” to use the master key fob to take the elevator to the defendant’s floor, or to hold the elevator door open while the men remained in the elevator. Fourth, the majority essentially ignores that the right to prevent interference with real property under section 776.031(1) is limited to real property “other than a dwelling.” 

“Lastly, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the victim’s conduct of photographing the interior of the defendant’s home from the common element elevator was not a “tortious or criminal interference” with the defendant’s personal property. This is not a case where brigands were at the door of hearth and home, bent on pillage and plunder. A condominium association’s property manager and city code inspectors were documenting a code violation in a condominium common area.”

But Judge Gross’s opinion did not win out. As a result, Paese was granted pretrial immunity – preventing the State from taking her to trial on the felony battery charge. 

In sum, Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) is a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Stand Your Ground immunity in cases where nondeadly force is used or threatened. The 4th DCA found that:

• Paese swatting the code inspector’s phone out of his hand was objectively reasonable and proportional to the “threat” under the circumstances
• Paese expressed to the property manager that she did not want anyone coming to her unit, and the men in the elevator defied this
• When told to leave, they refused – until Paese used “minimal” nondeadly force against one of the men (e.g. she did not even touch him directly)
• Because the trial judge erroneously denied Paese immunity based on a DEADLY FORCE analysis (which was inapplicable in Paese’s case), and because tortious interference with Paese’s property triggered her use of nondeadly force, the felony battery charge required dismissal
• The State did not have clear and convincing evidence Paese’s use of force was unlawful, and she made a prima facie case for immunity through her testimony

Judge Gross wrote a fiery dissent (that DID NOT win the day), in which he argued that:

• The majority misinterpreted Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and extended the doctrine of “tortious interference” to cover Paese’s dwelling (e.g. condo) rather than just personal property (e.g. computers, purses, cars)
• The code inspector/manager did not act unlawfully (or even improperly) when they went up to Paese’s unit
• None of the men actually entered the condo – only the foyer (and this was limited to the code inspector’s arm)
• The men were not there to “tortiously interfere” with Paese’s property – they were there to perform a code inspection
• Given all of this, Paese was not legally justified in using nondeadly force against the code inspector

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Paese v. State, 381 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), as it is a huge win for defendants in Stand Your Ground cases (especially those involving allegations of use/threatened use of nondeadly force).

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