Hair v. State
| Decision Date | 19 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D09-2501.,1D09-2501. |
| Citation | 17 So.3d 804 |
| Parties | Jimmy HAIR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward T. Bauer of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Jimmy Hair petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that he is immune from prosecution on charges of first-degree murder under section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2007). We previously granted the petition by unpublished order and ordered Hair's release. Our reasons for doing so are set forth herein.
An evidentiary hearing was held on defense counsel's motion to dismiss the indictment. Hair and Rony Germinal visited a nightclub on the evening of July 20, 2007. Germinal and Charles Harper exchanged harsh words in the club. In the early morning hours of July 21, after the club closed, Germinal was driving a vehicle and Hair was in the passenger seat as they departed the area. Harper was in the immediate vicinity and the men spoke to each other. Harper came over to the car and entered it but was pulled away by Frye, his friend. Harper, however, escaped Frye's grasp and reentered the vehicle on the driver's side. Hair, who held a permit to carry a concealed weapon, had a handgun on his seat. Hair and Harper "tussled" within the interior of the vehicle. Frye tried to pull Harper from the vehicle again but Harper was shot and killed by Hair. According to Hair, he was attempting to strike Harper with the handgun when it discharged.
After considering this evidence, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the statutory immunity was inapposite where the defendant was attempting to use the weapon as a club and it accidentally discharged. The court also found that there were disputed issues of fact which precluded granting of pretrial immunity.
In Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), this court addressed Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and codified at sections 776.013 through 776.032, Florida Statutes. Section 776.032(1) states that a person using force as permitted in section 776.013, with certain exceptions not applicable here, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. Section 776.013(1) provides:
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, a residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
The "Stand Your Ground" statutory immunity claim is resolved by the circuit court after a pretrial evidentiary hearing. The defendant bears the burden to prove entitlement to the immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d at 29. Our review of the circuit court's ruling is governed by the same standard which applies in an appeal from an order denying a motion to suppress. That is, the court's findings of fact must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo review. Hines v. State, 737 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Harper, the victim, had unlawfully and forcibly entered a vehicle occupied by Germinal, Hair, and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spitalieri v. Sec'y
...4th DCA 2009); Gray v. State, 13 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Hair v. State, 17 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); McDaniel v. State, 24 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999)). Accordingly, the Court......
-
Boyington v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...bearing the burden of proving entitlement to the immunity by only a preponderance of the evidence, relying on Hair v. State, 17 So. 3d 804, 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (per curiam). (Doc. 14-7 at 213-14). Petitioner asserted his counsel's failure to pursue this claim to immunity pre-trial was p......
-
Oken v. Williams
...we recently approved of the use of another common law writ to enforce legislatively mandated pretrial procedures. See Hair v. State, 17 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). 2. This footnote addresses the dissent's general attack on the use of internet citations and research. First, it should be n......
-
Derossett v. State
...to dismiss a charge made on the ground of immunity from prosecution pursuant to the Stand Your Ground Law." (citing Hair v. State , 17 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) )). Prohibition is the appropriate remedy to address the trial court's denial of such a motion on the merits because the......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...of facts are reviewed under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Hair v. State, 17 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) §776.032 creates an immunity from prosecution, and not merely a statutory defense. When defendant raises immunity under §776.0......