North FL’s Highest Court Denies Stand Your Ground Claim – One Judge Authors Fiery Dissent

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. News & Announcements Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled the State provided ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that a defendant was not acting in self-defense when he shot his stepson. However,  one judge authored a fiery dissent.

CASE: Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

Charge(s): Manslaughter 

OUTCOME: Defendant’s “Stand Your Ground” claim denied – with one judge dissenting.

Stand Your Ground in Florida

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

Under the law, if someone reasonably believes the force they use or threaten to use is necessary to protect against a threat – and that force or threat of force is reasonable and proportional to the threat faced – the use or threatened use of such force is not a crime. Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). To learn more about Stand Your Ground in Florida, click here.

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

If someone wishes to assert a Stand Your Ground defense in Florida, a good first step is filing a pretrial motion to dismiss arguing the use of force (or threatened use of force) was protected by the law. In the event such a motion is filed, a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing will be held. For more on this, click here.

At that pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant must first present a prima facie (on its face) case that they reasonably acted in self-defense, defense of others, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (if deadly force was used or threatened). For more on this, click here.

In the event that nondeadly force was used (e.g. the defendant slapped someone), the defense must make a prima facie showing that use or threatened use of nondeadly force was reasonably necessary to prevent any imminent use of unlawful force against the defendant, another person, or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

Note: Though the facts alleged in a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss must have evidence to support them, they do not have to be sworn to or undisputed (which is a requirement for motions to dismiss under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4)). For more, click here.

If a defendant makes an initial prima facie showing of a justified use or threatened use of force, the burden shifts to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use or threatened use of force was not justified (e.g. not protected by the Stand Your Ground law). Freeman v. State, 373 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

If the State fails to do so, the trial judge must grant the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the charges – granting the defendant immunity from prosecution. If the State does refute the claim of lawful use of force by clear and convincing evidence, the case will proceed to trial. Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

In the event that a judge denies a defendant’s pretrial motion for Stand Your Ground immunity in Florida, a defendant can petition (e.g. file a writ of prohibition) to the Florida District Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over the trial court. If the DCA finds the trial judge wrongly denied the motion, the DCA can reverse this – resulting in the defendant receiving immunity.

Important: Even if a Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss fails at a pretrial immunity hearing, the defense can raise a SYG defense again at the trial level. There, the State must prove that the defendant did not lawfully use or threaten to use force beyond a reasonable doubt. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

Sometimes, a trial judge will evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” and conclude that the denial of a SYG motion to dismiss should be denied. A defendant will then appeal the decision to a DCA. Typically, the appellate court will agree that the judge was wrong to deny the motion (and grant it), or concur with the trial judge’s reasoning and affirm their decision.

In some cases, however, the appellate court is split – with one or more judges believing that the Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss should have been granted, while others agree it should’ve been denied. One such case – recently decided by Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court – is Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

Let’s take a look at Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) – and discuss what it means for defendants asserting Stand Your Ground immunity in Tallahassee and North Florida.

KEY CASE: Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

In Edwards, the defendant (Edwards) was charged with manslaughter of his stepson after an argument at his home. Edwards moved for pretrial immunity pursuant to Stand Your Ground – but his motion was denied by the trial judge.

At the hearing, it was revealed that Edwards and his stepson got into an argument over the fact that the victim’s mother got into a car accident while driving Edwards’s vehicle. According to the victim’s mother (Knight), who was there when the incident occurred, she saw Edwards and the victim in a heated verbal back-and-forth on the porch while she was standing outside.

As the fight escalated, Edwards and the victim walked into the home, where they “disappeared” for 10 to 15 seconds. The victim’s mother followed the men in and heard voices coming from the master bedroom. When she entered, she saw Edwards and the victim standing very close to one another. She could not see Edwards’s hands.

At that point, the victim allegedly punched Edwards a few times in the head. Edwards shot the victim, leading to him bleeding out. According to the facts in the record, Edwards did not render aid to his stepson (despite being a surgical nurse), and his stepson died at the scene. 

When he called 911, Edwards gave the operator a “false” recounting of the events that led to his stepson’s death. Edwards claimed he awoke to his stepson beating him and shot him out of fear for his life. He repeated that story to the EMT that treated him. According to the 1st DCA:

“The State charged Edwards with manslaughter. Edwards moved to dismiss the charge on grounds that he was acting in self-defense when he shot the victim. Edwards alleged that the victim took his cell phone before following Edwards into the trailer. He claimed that the victim threatened to kill him, punched him in the head, and placed a hand over his mouth to prevent him from breathing. Edwards alleged that he shot the victim because he was in fear for his life. Based on these allegations, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The court considered testimony from multiple witnesses and denied Edwards’ motion to dismiss.”

At the pretrial immunity hearing on his motion to dismiss, Edwards testified to the above version of events. But the judge denied Edwards’s motion and allowed the State’s case to move forward. The trial judge found that Edwards’s testimony was not supported by the evidence – and as a result, he was not entitled to pretrial immunity.

Edwards appealed to Florida’s 1st DCA, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not act in lawful self-defense when he fatally shot the victim. A divided 1st DCA disagreed – with the majority voting to affirm the trial judge’s decision.

The 1st DCA majority indicated that Edwards failed to make a prima facie showing that he acted in lawful self-defense when he shot his stepson, writing:

“A conclusory allegation that the defendant acted in self-defense is not enough. Moore, 337 So. 3d at 882. Rather, the defendant must allege specific facts that show or tended to show that he (1) used deadly force; (2) reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another; (3) used such deadly force while resisting the victim’s attempt to murder him, to commit a forcible felony on him, or to commit a forcible felony on or in Edwards’ dwelling; and (4) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in place he had a right to be. See Fla. Std. J. Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(f).”

“And so, here, Edwards needed to point to facts that showed or tended to show that: he used deadly force; he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another; he used deadly force while resisting the victim’s attempt to murder him, to commit a forcible felony on him, or to commit a forcible felony on or in Edwards’ dwelling; and Edwards was not engaged in criminal activity and was in a place he had the right to be. Edwards did not present any evidence in support of his motion to dismiss. And the unsworn allegations in Edwards’ motion lack evidentiary value.”

The 1st DCA majority went on to rule that even if Edwards had presented a prima facie case of self-defense, this was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence:

“Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the pretrial hearing, we hold that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. And from that competent, substantial evidence, we hold that the State met its burden to overcome Edwards’ immunity claim by clear and convincing evidence. Stated differently, the State met its burden to show that it was not objectively reasonable for Edwards to believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death when he shot his stepson.”

“His stepson was no stranger to Edwards. His stepson had a key and free access to Edwards’ trailer. Their interaction was frequent. Edwards knew his stepson’s behaviors and tendencies. Even so, Edwards shot his stepson, who was half his size, who had no history of violence as far as Edwards knew, who had never threatened Edwards, who did not have specialized fighting knowledge, and who had just injured his shoulder in a motor vehicle accident. In the days before the shooting, Edwards had been aggressive toward his stepson. He left explicit, degrading messages for his stepson to find. 

“When he learned that those messages hurt his stepson’s feelings, Edwards laughed. The relationship between Edwards and his stepson, the testimony on the minor nature of Edwards’ injuries, along with all the testimony and evidence at the hearing, provides the context to evaluate whether it was objectively reasonable for Edwards to believe he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death when he shot his stepson at point-blank range.”

Because the “totality of the circumstances” indicated Edwards was the “aggressor” and that he was not in danger of death or great bodily harm at the time he used deadly force, the 1st DCA concluded that Edwards was not “standing his ground.” 

The 1st DCA also rejected the claim that just because Edwards’s stepson “punched” him, this did not authorize Edwards to shoot him:

“Despite the testimony on the “goose egg” observed on Edwards’ head and Knight’s testimony that her son landed three punches to Edwards’ head, not every blow to the head is deadly. And not every fist fight justifies defending oneself with deadly force. Context matters.”

Though the majority insisted Edwards did not lawfully use deadly force (and there was “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut his self-defense claim), 1st DCA Judge Bradford Thomas strongly disagreed. 

In a fiery dissent, Judge Thomas wrote that Edwards made a prima facie showing of self-defense that was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Judge Thomas also argued that the fact Edwards’s “stepson” was shot did not impact the validity of his Stand Your Ground claim:

“The majority emphasizes—as did the trial court—the fact that Petitioner had a stepfather-like relationship with the decedent. However, this finding is only important to the ultimate decision on entitlement to immunity if, in determining whether Petitioner had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm, the court applies a heightened standard to Petitioner because his “stepson” was his attacker. There is no support in the statute for this heightened standard. The key dispositive fact in this case, as specifically found by the trial court—and as I discuss in more detail below—is that the decedent repeatedly punched Petitioner in the head in Petitioner’s bedroom, and Petitioner shot him in response at point-blank range. Therefore, based on the factual findings, Petitioner is entitled to immunity.”

Challenging the majority’s assertion that Edwards was the “aggressor” and in superior physical condition while his stepson was the victim, Judge Thomas wrote:

Petitioner is an obese 61-year-old man with a hip replacement, increased blood pressure, sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, and a hand injury, which required surgery. He had a clear legal right under sections 776.012(2) and 776.013(1), Florida Statutes, to shoot the decedent at contact range, to defend himself from the infliction of great bodily harm or death. When Petitioner was in his own bedroom, the decedent repeatedly punched and struck Petitioner’s head in a vicious and criminal attack. The decedent was a 24-year-old man almost forty years younger than Petitioner. Petitioner never struck the decedent. The decedent’s repeated blows to Petitioner’s head resulted in visible injuries. These injuries required Petitioner to be cleared for his unlawful arrest and incarceration by an emergency-room physician who ordered a CT scan to ensure that Petitioner did not suffer an internal brain injury from the decedent’s criminal actions.”

Observing that the State “never called its homicide detective” to testify at the immunity hearing, Judge Thomas concluded that Edwards did present a prima facie case for immunity that was not overcome by clear and convincing evidence:

“Here, there is no question that the decedent was repeatedly punching Petitioner in the head when the decedent was shot at point-blank range. Petitioner was entitled to use deadly force to defend himself, not just from the “imminent” danger of great bodily harm, but the actual infliction of such harm. Petitioner’s prima facie claim of self-defense immunity was never overcome by clear and convincing evidence presented by the State. In fact, the State’s evidence was wholly lacking, which no doubt explains why the State did not call its homicide detective. … The trial court erred on the facts and the law in denying the motion to dismiss.”

In sum, Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on Stand Your Ground immunity. The 1st DCA held that:

• Edwards’s stepson was the subject of “explicit, degrading” messages that Edwards left him in the days before the shooting
• Edwards’s stepson was roughly half his size and in poor physical condition due to an injury
• The “punches” Edwards’s stepson landed did not pose a risk of death or serious bodily injury to Edwards when he used deadly force
• The fact that Edwards was in his bedroom did not entitle him to immunity, as his stepson was also a resident of the home
• Given the “totality of the circumstances,” Edwards’s self-defense claim was overcome by clear and convincing evidence, requiring affirmance of the trial judge’s ruling

However, Judge Bradford Thomas of the 1st DCA authored a lengthy dissenting opinion, arguing that:

• Edwards promulgated a prima facie showing of lawful self-defense that the State failed to rebut
• Edwards was attacked “brutally” in his own bedroom after his stepson started a physical fight with him
• Edwards’s injuries were potentially more serious than the majority opinion indicated
• Edwards was much older than his stepson and in relatively poor health
• The State failed to call its homicide detective during the SYG immunity hearing, a tacit admission that their case against Edwards was weak
• Based on the “totality of the circumstances,” Edwards was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Edwards v. State, 351 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), as it provides an intriguing example of how judges on Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court view Stand Your Ground claims. Even with the “same facts,” judges may draw radically different conclusions – as was the case in Edwards.

If someone is charged with a felony that is potentially enhanceable for sentencing purposes under Florida’s 10-20-Life law, this can carry lengthy prison sentences and heavy financial penalties if they are convicted. 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 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