North FL’s Highest Court Defines ‘Depraved Mind’ In Major Second-Degree Murder Case

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed a defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder – finding he acted with a “depraved mind” – before elaborating upon what this term actually means.

In Florida, second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder are very serious felonies.

For someone to be guilty of second-degree murder, the State must establish all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The victim is dead
• The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant
• There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life

Second-degree murder is typically considered a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, if a firearm is used to commit the offense, second-degree murder carries up to life in prison (pursuant to Florida’s 10-20-Life law, Fla. Stat. 775.087).

For someone to be guilty of attempted second-degree murder in Florida, all of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant intentionally committed an overt act that could have but did not result in the death of a victim 
• The act was imminently dangerous to another (other than the perpetrator) and demonstrated a depraved mind without regard for human life
• The overt act went beyond “mere preparation”

Attempted second-degree murder is typically a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, if someone is guilty of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm – and the victim was injured (but not guilty) – Florida’s 10-20-Life law allows for a sentence of up to life in prison. For more, click here.

Important: Attempted second-degree murder is any “imminently dangerous” act that would be considered second-degree murder if it caused the victim’s death. However, many advocates have argued for the repeal of Florida’s attempted second-degree murder law. To learn more, click here.

A shared element of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder is that the State must prove the presence of a “depraved mind” at the time of the act beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Per Holmes v. State, 278 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), an act done with a “depraved mind” involves all of the following:

• A person of ordinary judgment would know the act is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily to another
• It is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent
• It is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life

Courts have often found that a “depraved mind” does not usually develop in an instant. In many cases, the alleged perpetrator and victim of a second-degree murder (or attempted second-degree murder) have a “history” that allows “ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent” to form in the mind of the alleged perpetrator. Wiley v. State, 60 So.3d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

But is proof of preexisting animosity between an alleged perpetrator and victim of second-degree murder (or attempted second-degree murder) a legal requirement? In other words, must the State prove the defendant “didn’t like the victim” prior to the incident for the defendant to be guilty of second-degree murder?

The answer is – not necessarily, according to Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court. In a recent case, the 1st DCA argued that requiring proof of preexisting hostility before a “depraved mind” can exist would essentially eliminate the distinction between second-degree murder and first-degree murder (premeditated murder).

Let’s take a look at that case – Porter v. State, 384 So.3d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) – and assess what it means for those accused of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder in Florida.

KEY CASE: Porter v. State, 384 So.3d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) 

In Porter, the defendant (Porter) and the victim were members of rival gangs in Tallahassee. At trial, it was revealed that Porter went to the Governor’s Square Mall with 20 other students from Rickards High School to see a movie. According to witness testimony, Porter showed up to the movie with a gun.

One witness claimed that Porter repeated several times that he was going to kill “someone.” The victim joined the group later in the evening, just before the movie started. 

After the movie ended, Porter testified that the victim approached him aggressively, challenging him to a fight. Porter claimed he was scared, as the victim was known to be a good fighter and was associated with a rival gang. Porter also testified that he had seen the victim posing with firearms online. 

Porter pulled out his firearm and fatally shot the victim. Porter was arrested, and conceded to law enforcement after the shooting that he shot the victim because he “got under [Porter’s] skin.”

Porter was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, Porter moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA), asserting that the State did not prove he had a “depraved mind” sufficient to establish his guilt of second-degree murder. He moved to reduce the charge to manslaughter.

The trial judge denied Porter’s MJOA request, and he was ultimately found guilty. On appeal to the 1st DCA, Porter again contended that the State did not prove he had the mens rea (mindset) to commit second-degree murder at the time of the incident. Put another way, Porter claimed he was acting in the “heat of passion” (manslaughter) not with a “depraved mind.”

However, the 1st DCA disagreed and affirmed Porter’s conviction. In doing so, the 1st DCA adopted a very broad reading of the definition of “depraved mind” under the second-degree murder statute:

“The argument for whether the judgment of acquittal was properly denied turns on whether the State’s evidence was sufficient to prove that Appellant had the depraved mind required to commit second-degree murder. A second-degree murder is defined as the unlawful killing of an individual when perpetrated by “any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.””

“This Court has clarified that depraved mind is not limited to ill will, hatred, or evil intent: ‘Depraved mind’ within the second degree murder statute has been variously defined as importing malice in the sense of ill will, hatred, or evil intent, and as an inherent deficiency of moral sense and rectitude. Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766, 154 So. 2d 855, 154 So. 855. It has also been stated that malice is not limited in its meaning to hatred, ill will and malevolence, but ‘denotes a wicked and corrupt disregard of the lives and safety of others.’”

The 1st DCA continued, noting that simply using “ill will” and “evil intent” to define “depraved mind” risks blurring the distinction between first- and second-degree murder. As a result, the 1st DCA urged a broader reading of the statute (e.g. not requiring preexisting animosity between the defendant and victim):

“The inclusion of “ill will” and “evil intent” blurs the line between first- and second-degree murder. Premeditation is a state of mind and must be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding a killing, such as the type of weapon being used, prior difficulties between the parties, and statements made by the accused. Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1958). If the State introduces evidence of hatred, ill will, or evil intent, it is that very evidence that the jury could consider in determining whether a killing was premeditated. And, in fact, jurors in this case did express confusion about the definition of “depraved mind.”

Applying this to the facts of the case, the 1st DCA concluded there was “sufficient evidence” to support Porter’s second-degree murder conviction:

“Regardless, in the instant case, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the State presented testimony that Appellant told a witness he was going to kill someone hours before the shooting, and that after the movie, he was looking for the decedent. The State also presented evidence suggesting animosity between the Appellant and decedent, such as cross-city rivalry, and the existence of a shared ex-girlfriend. Appellant’s own rap lyrics suggested these reasons motivated the killing. He conceded to law enforcement officers that he shot the decedent because the decedent “got under [his] skin.” And, by shooting twice at close range, Appellant certainly demonstrated disregard for human life. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal was properly denied.”

In sum, Porter v. State, 384 So.3d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of what constitutes a “depraved mind” in second-degree and attempted second-degree murder cases. The 1st DCA (North Florida’s highest court) found:

• A “depraved mind” is not confined to ill will and evil intent, but also includes “a wicked and corrupt disregard of the lives and safety of others”
• However, even under the narrower reading of the definition of “depraved mind” under Florida law, there was ample evidence that Porter acted with a depraved mind (e.g. ill will, evil intent) in killing the victim
• Because the State had proven Porter acted with a “depraved mind,” his conviction was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Porter v. State, 384 So.3d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024), as it shows that courts may adopt different definitions of “depraved mind” in second-degree and attempted second-degree murder cases. 

Moreover, Porter reveals the kind of evidence that Florida’s courts are likely to consider when evaluating whether to affirm or reverse a second-degree murder conviction.

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 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