No Duty To Warn In Stand Your Ground Cases, Major Florida Court Rules

December 19, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant lawfully used force with a firearm after believing he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm – and that he did not have a duty to warn his attacker he was armed.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law provides key legal protections for those who reasonably act in self-defense, defense of others, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Depending on the circumstances, it can be a total defense to prosecution (pretrial immunity), or serve as a trial defense (if no pretrial immunity). Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

Although “Stand Your Ground” is one of Florida’s most well-known pieces of legislation, it is also one of the most misunderstood.

Stand Your Ground is a common defense to the following charges in Florida (among others):

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

The key portions of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law are Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032 and 776.041:

• Fla. Stat. 776.012 – Provides that someone is justified in using nondeadly force if it is reasonably necessary to defend against any imminent use of unlawful force – or deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to oneself, others, or prevent the commission of a forcible felony
• Fla. Stat. 776.013 – Provides that someone located in their residence or vehicle has a presumed fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm when someone unlawfully enters – and that the person committing an unlawful entry is presumed to be doing so with the intent of committing a forcible felony
• Fla. Stat. 776.031 – Provides that someone may use nondeadly force to prevent trespass or “other tortious or criminal interference” with someone’s private property – and deadly force if to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
• Fla. Stat. 776.032 – Provides immunity from prosecution to someone who uses or threatens to use deadly or nondeadly force in compliance with the above statutes (so long as the victim was not a police officer performing their official duties who identified themselves)
• Fla. Stat. 776.041 – Provides that Stand Your Ground is unavailable as a defense to someone committing, attempting to commit or escaping after committing a forcible felony, or someone who initially provoked the use (or threatened use of force)

For a comprehensive breakdown of the Stand Your Ground law and when someone claiming immunity from prosecution may be entitled to it, click here.

For someone’s use of force to be protected by Stand Your Ground, it must have been reasonable in nature. This means that a “reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew would have used the same force as did the defendant.” Montanez v. State, 24 So. 3d 799, 803 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010)

This used to be a strictly “objective” standard. However, the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that evidence of a defendant’s PTSD (or a similar mental condition) can be considered when evaluating how they subjectively viewed the threat (e.g. whether the use of force was objectively reasonable to that defendant, not just generally). For more, click here.

If someone claims their use of force (or threatened use of force) was protected by Stand Your Ground, they are entitled to a pretrial immunity hearing. At the hearing, the State must prove to the trial judge by clear and convincing evidence the defendant’s use of force was unreasonable (not covered by the law). If the State fails, the charges must be dismissed.

But if the State successfully establishes a defendant’s use of force was unreasonable in the pretrial immunity hearing, the case proceeds to trial. There, the State must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not lawfully “stand their ground” to obtain a conviction. State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) 

Occasionally, a trial judge will find at a pretrial immunity hearing that a defendant’s use of force has been proven unreasonable – and thus, the case can proceed to trial. A defendant may appeal this finding, arguing that the judge got it wrong (and that the charges should be dismissed).

A key question is – does a person who uses or threatens to use force have a duty to warn the person (e.g. “I have a gun, don’t come any closer!”) against whom they are about to use force before they do so? If there is no warning, does this make the use of force unreasonable (or at least, more likely to be found to be unreasonable)?

The answer is no. Stand Your Ground imposes no duty to warn the person (or people) against whom force is about to be used, if the force is reasonable and proportional. 

Let’s take a look at the key Florida case on this issue, Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), and what it means for defendants asserting a Stand Your Ground defense.

KEY CASE: Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

In Mobley, the defendant (Mobley) was charged with two counts of second-degree murder after a shooting outside a Chili’s restaurant in 2008. He raised a Stand Your Ground argument under Fla. Stat. 776.012 and Fla. Stat. 776.032, claiming that the shootings were a necessary use of deadly force given the circumstances.

Mobley had stored the handgun he owned in the vehicle rather than taking it into the restaurant, believing he could not be armed on the premises. An argument eventually took place between two men and Mobley’s friend after the men approached the group Mobley was with inside the establishment.

Towards the end of the argument, Mobley felt uncomfortable with how one of the men had acted towards him and retrieved his firearm from the car. He stood outside with it, and was soon joined by his friend (Chico) and another man for a smoke break.

Moments later, one of the two men (Jason) who’d been arguing with them ran up to Chico and punched him, fracturing his eye socket. Jason postured as if he was ready to continue fighting and moved towards Mobley. 

As this was occurring, the other man who’d been arguing with Mobley’s group and had looked at him menacingly (Roly) raced towards Mobley from the front of the restaurant. Mobley testified at the pretrial immunity hearing he saw Roly reaching under his shirt as if to grab for a weapon. Mobley fired his pistol, fatally striking the two men.

Mobley’s request for immunity at the pretrial hearing was denied. Finding that the evidence did not support a conclusion that Mobley’s use of force was reasonable, the trial judge claimed:

• Mobley should have waited to see if Roly possessed an actual weapon
• Mobley should have warned the attackers that he was carrying a firearm
• Mobley’s use of deadly force was a significant and unwarranted escalation 

On appeal, however, Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami area) reversed the trial judge’s finding and ruled that Mobley was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity. The 3rd DCA began by reiterating the trial judge’s primary arguments:

“Here, the court below determined that Mobley did not “reasonably” believe that deadly force was “necessary” to prevent “imminent” death, great bodily harm, or commission of a forcible felony. In doing so, the court discounted the totality of the circumstances facing Mobley and concluded that the use of deadly force was not reasonable, first, because Mobley ‘never saw a weapon and did not know anything about the possibility of a weapon,’ with him only seeing ‘the second attacker appear to be reaching for something under his shirt,’ and second, because Mobley should have brandished his gun, fired a warning shot or told the attackers to stop because he had a gun. We disagree…”

The 3rd DCA held that Mobley did not have to warn the attackers that he had a firearm, as such a requirement appears nowhere in the Stand Your Ground law.

“As a preliminary matter, Mobley was not required to warn that he had a gun. Section 776.012(1), (2), clearly states where the danger of death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony is “imminent,” the use of deadly force is justified. The statute contains no warning requirement. See T.P. v. State, 117 So.3d 864, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting McWhorter v. State, 971 So.2d 154, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)).”

The 3rd DCA then turned to the “primary reason” the trial judge rejected Mobley’s Stand Your Ground immunity claim – the judge’s belief that Mobley was wrong to shoot the two men since he had not yet confirmed whether Roly possessed a firearm. However, the 3rd DCA observed:

“The shooting at issue did not occur in a vacuum. Mobley did not shoot two innocent bystanders who just happened upon him on a sidewalk. The record—as corroborated by a video of the events—is that (1) Mobley found himself in the middle of a violent, unprovoked attack on a companion who was standing right next to him, by one of two men who earlier had engaged in an altercation to which he was a witness; (2) after the initial violent attack on Mobley’s friend, the attacker immediately turned his attention to Mobley; (3) less than four seconds after that, the first attacker was joined by the second man involved in the altercation inside the restaurant; and (4) when the second man reached under his shirt after rushing up to join his companion who had not abandoned the field, Mobley believed the second man was reaching for a weapon to continue the attack.”

“With these facts at hand, and with Mobley’s knowledge of these two assailants, the issue for determination was not whether Mobley knew a weapon was possible or whether he actually saw one, but whether a reasonably prudent person in those same circumstances and with the same knowledge would have used the force Mobley used.”

Essentially, the 3rd DCA found that since Mobley’s decision to use deadly force was reasonable given the circumstances, he was entitled to immunity. The majority concluded:

“It may have been more prudent for Mobley and Chico to skitter to their cars and hightail it out of there when they had the chance; however, as even the State concedes and the court below recognized, Mobley and Chico had every right to be where they were, doing what they were doing and they did nothing to precipitate this violent attack. The only relevant inquiry was whether, given the totality of the circumstances leading up to the attack, the appearance of danger was so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of deadly force. Because the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that had the proper standard been applied, Mobley’s use of deadly force was justified, the motion to dismiss should have been granted.”

Notably, one judge on the 3rd DCA disagreed with the majority. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Salter supported the trial judge’s conclusion that Mobley was not entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity – writing:

“In the present case, the trial court correctly assessed those circumstances and the defendant’s state of knowledge; the trial court did not otherwise dwell on the defendant’s subjective state of mind or intentions. The fact-intensive determination of whether a reasonable and prudent person in the defendant’s shoes might have perceived that Mr. Carrazana was reaching for a deadly weapon turned on the court’s assessment of the defendant’s credibility. The defendant and his friend of 17 years were the only living eyewitnesses to that important fact.”

“The video and freeze-frame images did not definitively prove or disprove the reasonableness of that alleged perception—an alleged perception which turned out to be erroneous. Simply stated, the justifiability of this defendant’s use of force, or of a hypothetical “reasonably prudent person’s” use of force, turns on a fact dependent on the defendant’s credibility. The majority disagrees with the trial court regarding the trial court’s assessment of the defendant’s credibility, but that is an assessment to which we should defer.”

To Judge Salter, the primary issue in the case was if Mobley was “credible” when he asserted that he believed Roly (Mr. Carrazana) was reaching for a deadly weapon. Since the video did not prove (nor disprove) that Mobley’s belief was reasonable, Judge Salter believed that a jury should decide if Mobley truly “stood his ground.” 

However, Judge Salter’s opinion did not win out. As a result, Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) has gone down as a defendant-friendly interpretation of Stand Your Ground that Florida defense attorneys (and defendants) should be aware of before pretrial immunity hearings. 

In sum, Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) is an intriguing development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Stand Your Ground immunity. The 3rd DCA held that:

• Mobley did not have to wait to see if his attacker had a gun before firing in self-defense (given the totality of the circumstances)
• Mobley did not have a legal duty to warn his attackers that he had a firearm before discharging it to defend himself and his friend

It is the latter takeaway that makes Mobley a particularly significant case. No provision in Stand Your Ground provides a “duty to warn.” 

The only requirement is that the use of force was reasonable and proportional given the facts known to the defendant at the time. The State must prove the use of force was unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence for someone not to be extended pretrial immunity. Boston v. State, 326 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2021).

Knowing about the Stand Your Ground law in Florida is crucial when evaluating whether this is a potentially viable defense in response to a criminal charge. If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and wishes to assert a Stand Your Ground defense, it is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. 

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