DWAYNE F. HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dwayne Hunter was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his brother Kerry during an armed confrontation. Hunter appealed on self-defense grounds, arguing the state failed to disprove his hypothesis of innocence and failed to prove he acted with a depraved mind. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Hunter did not meet the requirements for justifiable homicide by self-defense because he failed to retreat when the duty to do so arose.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence supported a jury conclusion that Hunter did not meet the legal requirements for justifiable homicide by self-defense. Hunter had a duty to retreat when Kerry threatened to kill him during their initial altercation, but instead he retrieved a rifle and returned to the scene, escalating the situation rather than retreating.
[1] A defendant seeking to establish self-defense must demonstrate a real necessity for taking a life and a situation causing a reasonably prudent person to believe that dang…
[2] To justify homicide in self-defense, a combatant must retreat to the wall using all means in their power to avoid the need to take a life.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There must be reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished. "Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching." The one interposing the defense must not have wrongfully occasioned the necessity; he must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life”
Establishes the legal standard for self-defense in Florida, requiring imminent danger, reasonable grounds for fear, and that the defendant use all reasonable means to avoid taking a life.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunter and his brother Kerry argued at a friend's home, during which Kerry threatened to kill Hunter. Hunter drove away but returned with a .22 rifle.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Depraved Mind Regardless Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Dwayne F. Hunter appeals from a conviction and sentence for second degree murder in the shooting of his brother, Kerry. We affirm.
Dwayne F. Hunter argued with Kerry while they visited the home of a friend. During the altercation, Kerry threatened to kill Hunter. Hunter drove away, returned to the scene of the argument and emerged from his truck armed with a .22 rifle. Kerry also left the scene and returned with a .880 handgun. The brothers confronted and shot at each other. Kerry was killed. Autopsy results revealed that Kerry had been shot three times in the chest and four times in the back. Although witnesses saw Hunter and Kerry approach each other, none saw the shooting or who fired first. Hunter testified that his brother was the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. Citing Brown v. State, 454 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 461 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1984) and Pierce v. State, 376 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1980), Hunter argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to disprove his hypothesis of innocence and failed to prove he acted with a depraved mind regardless of human life. We disagree and affirm.
The state had the burden of proving Hunter’s guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, including proving that Hunter did not act in self-defense. Brown at 598. Before Hunter can avail himself of the defense of self-defense, he must establish that his life was in imminent danger and he could not safely retreat. As we stated in Brown:
The law of justifiable homicide by self-defense has many times been set forth in decisions of this court. There must be reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished. “Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching.” The one interposing the defense must not have wrongfully occasioned the necessity; he must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life; the circumstances must be such as to induce a reasonably cautious and prudent man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity real, in order that the slayer may be justified in acting upon his own belief to that effect.
Id., at 599 (quoting Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273 (Fla.1924)). To justify homicide in self-defense, one must demonstrate a real necessity for taking a life and a situation causing a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger is imminent. Reimel v. State, 532 So. 2d 16, 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1989); citing Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981). “Before taking a life, a combatant must ‘retreat to the wall’ using all means in his power to avoid that need.” Id., at 18, citing Baker v. State, 506 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987); Cannon v. State, 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1985).
In the instant case, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Hunter did not “retreat to the wall” and that a reasonably cautious and prudent person would not believe there was a necessity for taking a human life. Accepting the state’s evidence as true, the jury could have concluded that Hunter and the victim had a verbal altercation during which the victim mentioned killing Hunter. The jury could have concluded that it was at this point that Hunter’s duty to retreat arose, but that he instead returned to his parents’ home, retrieved his rifle, returned to the scene, and, at a minimum, escalated the situation. Because there was evidence which would support a jury’s conclusion that Hunter’s acts did not comport with the law regarding self-defense, the court properly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. See State v. Tai Van Le, 553 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (second degree murder conviction upheld where nothing prevented defendant from retreating).
Accordingly we affirm Hunter’s conviction for second degree murder. Hunter raises two other points on appeal, which have no merit.
AFFIRM.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rivera, 719 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…tified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” See also Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of self-defense, the state must overcome the defense by rebuttal, or by inference in its case in chief. See Sneed v. State, 580 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). If the state…
-
Rasley v. State, 878 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…998). Rules applicable to the showing required by a defendant include: A demonstration by him or her of “a real necessity for taking a life and a situation causing a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger is imminent.” See Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). A person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A…
-
Dunn v. State, 206 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…showing that he acted in self-defense, a defendant must demonstrate “ ‘a real necessity for taking a life and a situation causing a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger is imminent.’ ” Rasley, 878 So. 2d at 476 (quoting Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)). Where self-defense is raised at trial, the appellate court must defer to the jury’s findings if the facts are disputed. Dias v. State, 812 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, the disputed facts created a jury quest…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)
- Emory Jack Brown, Jr. v. State, 454 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Irven George Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Rector v. State, 532 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Baker v. State, 506 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Pierce v. State, 376 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. TAI VAN LE, 553 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Weber v. Gemini Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cora Cannon v. State, 464 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)