Major FL Court Rules One-Armed Man Punching Coworker Justified Under Stand Your Ground

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, the State failed to prove that a one-armed man punching his coworker was legally unjustified.

• CASE: Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
• Charge(s): Battery on a Person Over 65 Years of Age
• Outcome: Case DISMISSED under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, after the 4th DCA found the State failed to prove the defendant’s use of force was unjustified.

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) nondeadly or deadly force in defense of themselves, in defense of 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
• Kidnapping 
• Assault and aggravated assault
• Battery and aggravated battery
• Felony battery
• Manslaughter

Stand Your Ground recognizes the use and/or threatened use of deadly force as reasonable and proportional under Florida law if any of the following are true (Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)):

• The defendant reasonably believed that the use or threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves
• The defendant reasonably believed that the use or threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to others
• The defendant reasonably believed that the use or threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (e.g. sexual battery, armed robbery, kidnapping)

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law also provides immunity to a defendant for using or threatening nondeadly force if the defendant reasonably believed this was necessary to prevent the imminent use of force against themselves, another person, or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

A couple of important notes about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law:

• Florida’s Stand Your Ground law does not apply if a defendant was actively engaged in criminal activity at the time they use or threaten force – with the (possible) exception of a felon in possession of a firearm. (Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2013))
• Florida’s Stand Your Ground law does not apply to an aggressor, provoker or initiator (e.g. if someone starts a fight) UNLESS they announce to the victim that they are no longer engaged in the violence/threatened violence AND have attempted to retreat (and can retreat no further without seriously risking death/great bodily harm)

If someone believes their use or threatened use of force was protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, they are likely to file a pretrial motion to dismiss. In that pretrial motion to dismiss, the defendant will likely outline a “factual narrative” that supports the claim that they’re entitled to immunity from prosecution under Stand Your Ground.

Once such a motion is filed, a pretrial immunity hearing will be scheduled. At that hearing, the defendant must first present a prima facie case that they are entitled to immunity (e.g. the case being dismissed/no further prosecution). Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Per Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), 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 Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

If the defendant makes a prima facie showing that they are entitled to immunity, the burden of proof shifts to the State to disprove the defendant’s “factual narrative” by clear and convincing evidence. In other words, the State must show that the defendant’s “version of events” that supposedly entitles them to immunity, is refuted by the actual evidence.

If the State fails to overcome the defendant’s prima facie immunity showing (if and when one is made), the case against the defendant must be dismissed as a matter of law. If the judge finds the State did refute the defendant’s “prima facie case” by clear and convincing evidence, the motion to dismiss will be denied – and the case will (usually) proceed to trial.

The good news about filing a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss (even if it is denied) is that it gives the defense two distinct tactical advantages:

• The State must disprove the defendant’s lawful use/threatened use of force claim TWICE (e.g. once at the pretrial immunity hearing, once at trial when the State has the burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)
• If the motion is denied after a pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant (within 30 days) can file a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition asking the District Court of Appeal with jurisdiction over the trial court to intervene (e.g. reverse the trial judge)

If a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition is filed by a defendant following the denial of a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss (at the pretrial immunity hearing), the Florida District Court of Appeal with jurisdiction over the trial court will have two choices:

• Grant the defendant’s petition, finding that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by denying the motion to dismiss (resulting in the DISMISSAL of the charge(s))
• Deny the defendant’s petition, finding that the trial judge did not err – allowing the case to proceed to trial

In one major case recently decided by Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida’s highest court), a one-armed defendant punched an elderly coworker after an argument. He was charged with battery on an elderly person (over 65 years of age) – a felony under state law.

The defendant filed a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss, arguing that he reasonably thought there was an imminent threat of bodily injury to himself at the time he threw the punch (e.g. he was scared that he coworker was going to hit him). 

The trial judge disagreed and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the pretrial immunity hearing. The defendant subsequently appealed to the 4th DCA, arguing that the trial judge got it wrong and urging the 4th DCA to dismiss the battery charge against him.

The 4th DCA agreed and reversed the trial judge, dismissing the case against the defendant after finding he made a prima facie showing of entitlement to pretrial immunity that the State did not overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

Let’s take a look at that case – Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), and discuss what it means for defendants in Florida exploring a Stand Your Ground defense.

KEY CASE: Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)

In Martin, the defendant (Martin) was charged with battery on an elderly victim (over 65 years of age).

According to the 4th DCA, though the facts were somewhat disputed, the following set of events was generally agreed upon:

• Martin and the alleged victim (his elderly coworker) were working as valet drivers, when they got into an argument
• The younger Martin, who had only one arm, began to yell at the coworker – who yelled back at him
• Martin attempted to walk away from the verbal back-and-forth at least three times, but each time, the alleged victim got in front of him and stopped him from doing so
• The alleged victim showed Martin an image of him in his “bodybuilding days” and poked Martin in the chest a couple of times
• The final time Martin attempted to walk away, the victim grabbed Martin’s shirt – and continued to yell at him
• Fearing that the situation could get more “intense” (and that if it did, Martin would be at a physical disadvantage due to having just one arm), Martin punched the victim in the face, breaking his nose

According to the 4th DCA, the judge denied Martin’s motion to dismiss at the pretrial immunity hearing. The 4th DCA wrote:

“At the hearing’s conclusion, the trial court orally determined the State “met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that [the punch] was not justified.” The court found Martin and the alleged victim “were both mad at each other over the fact that nobody was there,” and “[t]hey were working by themselves.” The court further determined the situation was “heated” and “continued to get more heated as it went on.” Finally, the court did not believe Martin’s response was “proportional to the event.””

After hearing Martin’s appeal, however, the 4th DCA disagreed. Finding that the totality of the circumstances supported Martin’s claim that an objectively reasonable person in his position would have feared imminent bodily harm, the 4th DCA wrote:

“In the present case, the trial court did not make any credibility determinations or otherwise attempt to resolve Martin and the alleged victim’s conflicting accounts of the altercation. Instead, the trial court’s ruling was based purely on its legal determination that Martin’s use of force was not justified or proportional under the facts. Reviewing this legal determination de novo as we are compelled to do, we disagree and conclude that a reasonable person in Martin’s situation would have used the same level of force.”

“Given the circumstances facing Martin, the force used in this case was justified and proportional to the event. These circumstances included: (1) Martin having only one arm; (2) the alleged victim’s verbal threats during the heated exchange; (3) the alleged victim’s act of “getting close” to Martin and raising his voice (by his own admission); (4) Martin’s testimony that he believed the alleged victim wanted to harm him; and (5) the alleged victim’s act of pointing his finger in Martin’s face and grabbing Martin’s shirt as Martin attempted to walk away for a third time.”

“Simply put, based on the circumstances as they appeared to Martin, a reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what Martin knew would have used the same force as did Martin. … Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order denying Martin’s motion to dismiss.”

Essentially, the 4th DCA majority found that the alleged victim raised his voice, got physically close to Martin, and grabbed his shirt – putting Martin in fear that violence was about to occur. Because Martin’s punch was not clearly disproportionate (given the facts in the record), he was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity.

However, one 4th DCA judge disagreed. Judge Warner concluded that the trial judge was correct to deny Martin’s claim of pretrial immunity in a dissenting opinion that reads:

“I would deny the petition for prohibition, as I agree with the trial court’s legal conclusion that the punch thrown by the petitioner, which broke the victim’s nose, was neither proportionate to the alleged “threat” posed by the victim nor in self-defense. The petitioner did not present any evidence of “imminent use of unlawful force” by the victim. See § 776.012(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). While the parties were engaged in a heated argument, the victim did not take any actions which suggested that he was about to attack the petitioner. Just as likely is that the petitioner was simply tired of being harassed by an older man, which does not constitute a ground to use force against the victim.”

Put simply, Judge Warner thought it was likely Martin punched the alleged victim because he was annoyed with being berated, not because he feared imminent violence. However, Judge Warner’s opinion did not win the day – and the case against Martin was dismissed.

In sum, Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) is a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law regarding Stand Your Ground – specifically on the issue of pretrial immunity. The 4th DCA found that:

• An objectively reasonable person in Martin’s position could have feared imminent and unlawful violence
• Martin used nondeadly force, not deadly force, against the alleged victim
• Martin – who had one arm – tried to walk away from the argument multiple times, but he was physically obstructed by the alleged victim
• Given the “totality of the circumstances,” he presented a prima facie case for immunity under Stand Your Ground that the State failed to refute by clear and convincing evidence
• This required dismissal of the charges against him

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Martin v. State, 414 So.3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), as it is a recent, defendant-friendly Stand Your Ground case surrounding the 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