Peterson v. State, No. 1D07-3943.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Kahn |
| Citation | 983 So.2d 27 |
| Parties | Zack PETERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D07-3943. |
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
[983 So.2d 28]
Anabelle Dias of Anabelle Dias Associates, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Philip W. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
KAHN, J.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to review an order denying his motion to dismiss based on the statutory immunity established by section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2006). We deny the petition and hold that a criminal defendant claiming protection under the statute must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is immunized from prosecution. Here, the trial court applied the correct standard.
The State charged petitioner with one count of attempted first-degree murder, alleging that petitioner shot his brother with a firearm. Petitioner moved to dismiss the information on the ground that he was immune from criminal prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), because the shooting occurred when petitioner's brother assaulted him after having been asked to leave petitioner's home.
The trial court conducted a hearing at which the parties did not present live evidence but, instead, presented the deposition of an eyewitness — petitioner's and the victim's sister — as well as the deposition of the alleged victim. After consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. The trial court correctly observed that no rule or procedure had yet been enacted to guide trial courts in deciding a claim of immunity brought under section 776.032(1). The court nevertheless proceeded to recognize its role as finder of fact at this stage of the proceedings, "much in the same way that it does when deciding whether the state has proved a confession is voluntary." The court then determined that the testimony of the alleged victim was clear and reasonable, and "prosecution for attempted murder [would not be] precluded as a matter of law because the facts do not establish a self-defense immunity." The trial court further found that immunity had not been established as a matter of fact or law, and denied the motion to dismiss.
Petitioner now seeks a writ of prohibition, arguing he was entitled to immunity as a matter of law. The State responds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spitalieri v. Sec'y, Case No. 5:16-cv-87-OC-34PRL
...immunity. Resp. Ex. D at 21-27. However, Spitalieri made these arguments in terms of state law only. Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); §§ 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, Fla. Stat.; Velasquez v. State, 9 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Gray v. State, 13 So......
-
State v. Ultreras, No. 103,527.
...People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300, 302 (Colo.1999). The Florida Court of Appeal relied heavily on the Guenther decision in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla.Dist.App.2008), even though the Florida justified use-of-force immunity statute, Fla. Stat. § 776.032 (2006), differs from the Colorado......
-
State v. Gibbs, No. 18-1298
...hearing, he or she is not precluded from submitting justification to the jury as an affirmative defense at trial. See Peterson v. State , 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). In short, a defendant who wants to jealously guard his or her privilege against self-incrimination can pass......
-
Boyington v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 3:18-cv-810-BJD-MCR
...as the law placed the burden on the defendant to show entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). It was not until June 9, 2017, that the law became effective placing the burden on the state to prove by clear and conv......
-
Spitalieri v. Sec'y, Case No. 5:16-cv-87-OC-34PRL
...immunity. Resp. Ex. D at 21-27. However, Spitalieri made these arguments in terms of state law only. Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); §§ 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, Fla. Stat.; Velasquez v. State, 9 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Gray v. State, 13 So......
-
State v. Ultreras, No. 103,527.
...People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300, 302 (Colo.1999). The Florida Court of Appeal relied heavily on the Guenther decision in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla.Dist.App.2008), even though the Florida justified use-of-force immunity statute, Fla. Stat. § 776.032 (2006), differs from the Colorado......
-
State v. Gibbs, No. 18-1298
...hearing, he or she is not precluded from submitting justification to the jury as an affirmative defense at trial. See Peterson v. State , 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). In short, a defendant who wants to jealously guard his or her privilege against self-incrimination can pass......
-
Boyington v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 3:18-cv-810-BJD-MCR
...as the law placed the burden on the defendant to show entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). It was not until June 9, 2017, that the law became effective placing the burden on the state to prove by clear and conv......