North FL’s Highest Court Rejects Defendant’s Stand Your Ground Claim – Here’s Why

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal rejected a defendant’s claim that he was acting in lawful self-defense after he faced charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault.

• CASE: Raulerson v. State, 409 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) 
• Charge(s): Aggravated Battery
• Outcome: Stand Your Ground claim DENIED, as evidence indicating the defendant did not fire his gun in self-defense.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

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 a person lawfully uses (or threatens to use) either nondeadly or deadly force in defense of themselves, others, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. For more, click here.

Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – which is widely known but often misunderstood – a person may use or threaten to use deadly or nondeadly force if it is objectively reasonable based on the facts available to a defendant at the time the use/threatened use of force occurs. Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

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

Per Derossett and its progeny, use or threatened use of deadly force is considered to have been reasonable and proportional (under Stand Your Ground) if any of the following were true:

• The defendant’s use or threatened use of deadly force appeared reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves
• The defendant’s use or threatened use of deadly force appeared reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to another person (who was not the initiator, provoker, or aggressor)
• The defendant’s use or threatened use of force appeared reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (e.g. sexual battery, kidnapping, armed burglary)

It is important to note that as a matter of law in Florida, firing a gun (even if this is done into the air as a “warning shot”) is considered the use of deadly force. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So.3d 400, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) 

A defendant’s use of nondeadly force (e.g. punching, kicking, slapping) is permissible under the Stand Your Ground law if reasonably necessary to prevent imminent use of deadly or nondeadly force against the defendant, others, or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

Important: Florida’s Stand Your Ground law only applies when someone has a lawful right to be in the place where force is used or threatened and they are not engaged in unlawful activity. The sole (possible) exception to this rule is if someone is a felon in possession of a firearm – but reasonably uses or threatens force. For more, click here.

In the event that someone pursues a Stand Your Ground defense, the first step is to file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge(s) – citing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. Once this occurs, the court will schedule a pretrial immunity hearing to determine if the charge(s) should be dismissed. Freeman v. State, 373 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

At the pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant must first make a prima facie showing that their use or threatened use of force was protected under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. 

This does not require the presentation of evidence – only the promulgation of a factual narrative (within the pretrial motion to dismiss and/or at the hearing itself) alleging a use or threatened use of force that is compliant with Stand Your Ground (e.g. reasonable and proportional). Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Once this prima facie showing of a justified use/threatened use of force is made by the defense, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use/threatened use of force was not lawful (e.g. not justified under Stand Your Ground). If the State fails, the charge(s) must be dismissed at the hearing. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

A defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Stand Your Ground is accompanied by two “tactical” advantages:

• #1: The opportunity to have the charge(s) dismissed before trial (while also potentially arguing the defense at trial, if unsuccessful at the immunity hearing)
• #2: The opportunity to appeal the trial judge’s ruling (if the charges are not dismissed at the pretrial immunity hearing) to the Florida District Court of Appeal that exercises jurisdiction over the trial court (usually via a writ of prohibition)

In some cases, defendants in Florida will face serious felony charges such as aggravated battery and aggravated assault. They will often move for Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity in those cases, arguing their use of force or threatened use of force was protected under state law.

Sometimes, a trial judge will grant a defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law – conferring a defendant pretrial immunity (e.g. no trial will be held/the prosecution is over).

But occasionally, a trial judge will deny a defendant’s motion for pretrial immunity – finding that either the defense failed to raise a prima facie lawful use/threatened use of force claim or that the State rebutted that claim (if one was raised) by clear and convincing evidence.

In one case decided by Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court (Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal), a defendant was charged with four offenses:

• Aggravated battery with a deadly weapon
• Shooting or throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle
• Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
• Criminal mischief

The defendant moved to dismiss the charges before trial pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, arguing he was acting in justifiable self-defense. However, the trial judge ruled that the case could proceed to trial – finding the State refuted the defendant’s claim by clear and convincing evidence. 

The defendant filed a writ of prohibition to the 1st DCA, arguing that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by not dismissing the charges. But the 1st DCA disagreed – affirming the judge’s order denying the defendant’s Stand Your Ground immunity claim (e.g. requiring the defendant to go to trial).

Let’s look at that case – Raulerson v. State, 409 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) – and discuss what it means for defendants in Tallahassee and North Florida attempting to claim Stand Your Ground immunity.

KEY CASE: Raulerson v. State, 409 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) 

In Raulerson, the defendant (Raulerson) claimed he was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity on the basis that he was making a “citizen’s arrest” when he twice shot into the victim’s car and was also acting in lawful self-defense. The judge rejected this, prompting Raulerson’s appeal.

At the hearing, testimony from the defendant as well as alleged victims, police officers, experts and eyewitnesses was heard by the judge. It was revealed that on the morning of the incident, the two alleged victims (Husband and Wife) were traveling to the store to buy groceries. When they got home, they realized they forgot a few items and began to argue.

The couple drove back to the store, arguing on the way there and back home. Raulerson was in his home down the road at the time and asserted that the couple drove in separate cars – and that they were racing up and down the street while attempting to run each other off the road.

Raulerson contacted law enforcement about his alleged observations, which were disputed by the husband and wife at the hearing. The wife testified that she pulled next to her husband’s vehicle to talk to him about what they forgot to buy at the store – she denied they tried to run each other off the road.

Raulerson’s live-in girlfriend also contacted 911, claiming the couple (Husband and Wife) were engaged in a fight and that the police needed to be dispatched.

Eventually, the couple (e.g. the victims) returned home from the store with the groceries but were continuing to argue. They decided to go outside to avoid arguing in front of another occupant of the home. While they were headed towards the driveway, the husband admitted he shoved his wife to the ground out of frustration.

When Raulerson arrived at the victims’ home, he saw the couple continuing to sit inside the car. The wife was in the driver’s seat, while her husband was in the passenger’s seat. Raulerson said he saw the husband allegedly strangling his wife, so armed himself with an AR-15 that he kept in his truck.

Raulerson approached the vehicle and commanded the victims out of the car. As the two tried to speak to him, Raulerson pointed the gun at each of them. The husband encouraged Raulerson to put down the AR-15 and “fight like a man.” After this occurred, the husband got back into the car to drive away.

As the husband could not turn left without striking Raulerson and his wife, he cranked the wheel to the right and attempted to exit the property. Raulerson yelled that the husband as he left that he was under a “citizen’s arrest” – then fired two bullets at the vehicle. Both rounds hit the husband in his upper left thigh.

Raulerson disputed that the husband was attempting to leave – instead, he claimed the husband was driving directly at him and he shot in self-defense. However, expert testimony refuted this and indicated the husband was indeed driving away and that Raulerson was not in front of the car when he fired.

After considering the evidence, the trial judge denied Raulerson’s claim of lawful self-defense – and Raulerson appealed the ruling to the 1st DCA.

The 1st DCA rejected Raulerson’s self-defense claim, denying him pretrial immunity pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law (allowing the State to proceed to trial). The 1st DCA found that Raulerson failed to allege specific facts that would entitle him to immunity (e.g. failed to make a prima facie case):

“Raulerson has failed to show clearly and conclusively, without a good faith dispute, that when Husband was driving away from the scene and Raulerson twice fired his weapon into Husband’s car, Raulerson had an objectively reasonable belief that he faced an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death…”

“To demonstrate that his use of deadly force was justifiable, Raulerson had to 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 or to commit a forcible felony on him, and (4) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in place he had a right to be.”

Finding the forensic evidence in the case (e.g. ballistics) as well as witness accounts disputed Raulerson’s version of events, the 1st DCA concluded the trial judge did not err by denying his motion to dismiss:

“Raulerson has failed to show that there is no dispute that he is entitled to immunity. As the trial court found, the testimonial and physical evidence conflict with Raulerson’s version of events. Wife and Hunt were standing a few feet from Raulerson when Husband allegedly accelerated toward Raulerson. But neither reported jumping out of the way to avoid being hit. And Wife testified that Raulerson was standing to the left of the car when he fired his gun. The physical evidence also conflicted with Raulerson’s version of events.”

“The tire tracks showed that Husband immediately turned right as the car moved forward—not left where Raulerson was standing. Raulerson fired two shots; both rounds pierced the driver’s side door. The first hole was in the middle of the driver’s side door, and the second hole was near the door handle. Both forensic experts examined the entry paths of the bullets and concluded that Raulerson could not have been standing directly in front of the car when he fired his AR-15. On these facts, Raulerson has failed to show clearly and conclusively that he is immune from prosecution and that the trial court is acting beyond its jurisdiction. For these reasons, we deny Raulerson’s petition for a writ of prohibition.”

Put simply, because Raulerson’s “facts” to support his pretrial immunity claim were not “facts” at all (e.g. heavily disputed by all of the other evidence), he was not entitled to immunity.

Authoring a concurring opinion, Judge Tanenbaum of the 1st DCA characterized Raulerson’s actions as irresponsible and noted that he disobeyed law enforcement’s command to wait for their arrival:

“[T]here is only one question for me in this case: whether the record before us demonstrates clearly and conclusively, without a bona-fide factual dispute, that the petitioner is immune from prosecution and the trial court is proposing to proceed without the constitutional or statutory power to do so. My answer is a firm no, as I explain next…”

“Here, the petitioner did not just act without direction from a law enforcement officer—but instead acted directly contrary to an officer’s clear instruction: to wait and do nothing until law enforcement was on the scene. The petitioner chose to go at it alone, recklessly and unlawfully, creating a highly dangerous situation that easily could have ended with a tragic outcome for one of the victims or the petitioner. The petitioner cannot conduct an unauthorized arrest, while using the threat of deadly force, and claim immunity from prosecution for the unfortunate consequences that ensue. There being no clear case of immunity here, no basis exists to grant the extraordinary relief requested. I join the denial of the petition”

In sum, Raulerson v. State, 409 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) marks a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law on Stand Your Ground immunity and when a defendant has made a prima facie case that they lawfully used or threatened deadly or nondeadly force. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) found that:

• Raulerson failed to make a prima facie showing of lawful use of deadly force (e.g. that he shot to avoid great bodily harm or death he reasonably thought was imminent)
• The evidence overwhelmingly disputed Raulerson’s account of events – including expert testimony that indicated the victim was driving away from Raulerson (not towards him) when he fired
• Because Raulerson’s self-defense claim did not have merit, the trial judge’s order denying him pretrial immunity was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Raulerson v. State, 409 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), as it makes clear how the 1st DCA analyzes Stand Your Ground claims when the facts are heavily disputed.

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