North FL’s Highest Court Rejects Stand Your Ground Claim in Stabbing Case

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial judge’s order denying a defendant Stand Your Ground immunity after a fatal stabbing that he claimed was an effort to protect his sister.

• CASE: Swift v. State, 342 So.3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
• Charge(s): Second-Degree Murder
• Outcome: Stand Your Ground claim DENIED, as the evidence refuted the defendant’s claim that he stabbed the victim to defend his sister.

In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law (Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, 776.041) provides total immunity to defendants from criminal prosecution if they lawfully use or threaten to use deadly or nondeadly force in lawful self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property (under certain circumstances). 

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

Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, a person may use or threaten to use deadly or nondeadly force if it is objectively reasonable and proportional given the circumstances. Per Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) and Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), deadly force can permissibly be used or threatened if any of the following are true:

• The defendant developed an objectively reasonable belief that the use or threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury to themselves (unless they are actively engaged in unlawful activity/in a place they have no lawful right to be)
• The defendant developed an objectively reasonable belief that the use or threatened use of deadly force was  necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury to another person (other than if that person was the initiator, aggressor or provoker of the force that placed them at risk)
• The defendant developed an objectively reasonable belief that the use or threatened use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (e.g. sexual battery, armed robbery, kidnapping)

Note: The use or threatened use of nondeadly force is protected under Stand Your Ground if the use or threatened use of nondeadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of deadly or nondeadly force against a defendant, another person, or their property. Claudio-Martinez v. State, 324 So.3d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) 

If a defendant believes their use or threatened use of deadly or nondeadly force entitles them to pretrial immunity under Stand Your Ground, they may file a pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law. Once this occurs, a pretrial immunity hearing will occur. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) 

At the pretrial immunity hearing, a defendant must meet an “initial burden” of making a prima facie showing that their use or threatened use of force was lawful. Jefferson v. State, 264 So.3d 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Per Jefferson, a prima facie showing of a lawful use or threatened use of force under Stand Your Ground occurs when the defendant (either in their motion to dismiss or through testimony at the hearing) alleges specific facts that, unless refuted by the State, would constitute a lawful use or threatened use of force under Florida law.

Once this has occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was not acting lawfully in using/threatening force. If the State fails, the charge(s) must be dismissed at the pretrial immunity hearing. If the State succeeds, the case will proceed to trial. For more, click here.

In the event a defendant’s motion for Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity fails (e.g. trial judge denies the motion at the conclusion of the hearing), this is far from the end of the case. This is because the defendant can renew their Stand Your Ground claim at trial – where the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of/threatened force was unlawful.

Moreover, when a trial judge denies a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity motion (e.g. motion to dismiss), the defendant may appeal that ruling (often via a writ of prohibition) to the Florida District Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over the trial court.

There, the defendant will argue the trial judge erred as a matter of law by finding they were not entitled to pretrial immunity – requiring the reversal of the judge’s ruling and the dismissal of the charge(s). Freeman v. State, 373 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

In some cases, the appellate court (DCA) will affirm the trial judge’s ruling, finding a defendant did not present a prima facie case necessary to shift the burden to the State – or that if a prima facie showing of lawful force/threatened force was made, the State rebutted this by clear and convincing evidence.

In other cases, the appellate court will reverse the judge – finding that the State failed to refute the defendant’s prima facie claim of lawful use/threatened use of force by clear and convincing evidence – requiring dismissal of the charges as a matter of law.

In a fairly recent case, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) affirmed a trial judge’s finding that the defendant was “not credible” in claiming he acted in lawful defense of his sister by stabbing the alleged victim.

Let’s take a look at that case – Swift v. State, 342 So.3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) – and analyze why the 1st DCA rejected Swift’s pretrial immunity claim.

KEY CASE: Swift v. State, 342 So.3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)

In Swift, the defendant (Swift) was charged with second-degree murder after he allegedly stabbed a victim to death. His pretrial immunity motion (pursuant to Stand Your Ground) was denied by the trial judge – and he pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Stand Your Ground motion to dismiss.

At the pretrial immunity hearing, Smith (Swift’s sister) testified that he was protecting her from imminent death or great bodily harm at the hands of the victim. The only “direct witnesses” to the incident were Swift and his sister (Smith). According to the 1st DCA:

“Swift attacks how the trial court weighed the evidence presented at the immunity hearing. Swift’s self-defense theory was that he was protecting his sister, Bobbi Jo Smith, from imminent death or great bodily harm at the hands of Parker. Smith, the sole “eye-witness,” testified that she and Parker were involved in a physical altercation on the day of the murder and that Swift was simply trying to break up the fight when Parker was stabbed. Notably, there was no sign of physical injuries, to either Swift or Smith, as a result of the altercation. Moreover, Smith claimed that she was in and out of consciousness and could not say how Parker was stabbed. She further admitted that she lied when she told the responding officers that Parker’s wounds were the result of an accidental fall.”

After Smith testified, two other witnesses and several law enforcement officers took the stand. Officers argued Smith’s “story” was not supported by the forensic evidence. Upon considering the evidence and the testimony, the trial judge found that the State “clearly and convincingly” rebutted Swift’s claim that he lawfully defended his sister.

Swift appealed to the 1st DCA, arguing the trial judge “abused his discretion” by giving much more weight to the testimony of officers and other witnesses than the testimony of Smith or his sister. However, the 1st DCA disagreed and affirmed the trial judge’s order. The 1st DCA wrote:

“Smith’s testimony was far from credible. The only consistent aspect was her claim that she did not see the altercation between Swift and Parker. The trial court noted the undisputed fact that Parker was unarmed and the lack of evidence to support Smith’s version of the story. As a result, the trial court did not err in discounting Smith’s testimony. Tasked with weighing the evidence, the trial court did not act improperly when it gave more weight to the contradictory evidence presented by the neutral witnesses and responding officers. This Court will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. … The record thus includes competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Swift was not entitled to immunity under section 776.032. Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed.”

Put simply, the 1st DCA found that the “credible” evidence/testimony at the hearing supported the State’s claim that Swift fatally and unjustifiably stabbed an unarmed victim. Since the trial judge’s order was supported by “competent, substantial evidence,” the denial of Swift’s pretrial immunity claim was affirmed.

In sum, Swift v. State, 342 So.3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Stand Your Ground immunity – and specifically, when a trial judge’s denial of a defendant’s motion for pretrial immunity is to be reversed (or affirmed) on appeal. The 1st DCA ruled that:

• Smith’s testimony was not credible – it had various inconsistencies and was contradicted by forensic evidence
• The testimony of two (neutral) eyewitnesses and law enforcement officers supported the State’s theory that Smith fatally stabbed the victim unjustifiably
• The trial judge did not have to assign Smith’s pro-defendant testimony more credibility than the remaining evidence/testimony simply because she “saw everything happen” (as she seemed to have been lying)
• As a result, the judge’s order denying Swift immunity did not require reversal – requiring that his guilty plea to manslaughter was affirmed 

 Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Swift v. State, 342 So.3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), as it reinforces the fact that trial judges in the state are given broad discretion over how they weigh evidence and testimony at Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearings.

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