BLAIR ALEXANDRIA EDWARDS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity under Florida's justifiable use of force statute (§ 776.032). The trial court found the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the appellant's prima facie case on one count and dismissed the other count. The appellate court affirmed the judgment.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court correctly applied the clear and convincing evidence standard, properly weighed the conflicting evidence, and made appropriate credibility determinations in finding that the State overcome appellant's prima facie case of justifiable use of force for one count.
[1] When a defendant establishes a prima facie case of statutory immunity for use of force under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, the burden shifts to the State to prove by…
[2] An appellate court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding credibility of witnesses and whether the State has proven by…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Clear and convincing evidence is defined as 'an intermediate level of proof [that] entails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.'”
Definition of the evidentiary standard the State must meet to overcome a prima facie case of justification for use of force.
Appellant was charged with two counts and filed a motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, asserting her…
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 Statutory Immunity From Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
October 16, 2018 BILBREY, J.
Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after her no contest plea with reservation of her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss. Appellant’s motion to dismiss was based on the statutory immunity from prosecution provided by section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2017), where the use of force is justified pursuant to section 776.012, Florida Statutes.
At the motion hearing, the State conceded that Appellant’s motion established a prima facie case that Appellant’s use of force was justified and that the burden of proof was thus on the State to overcome that prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.1 § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017).2 After all the testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court found that the State had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence for one count of the two-count information. The trial court thus denied the motion to dismiss one count of the two-count information and granted dismissal of the other count pertaining to the other alleged victim.3 The trial court applied the correct standard, weighed the conflicting evidence, and determined the credibility of the witnesses in reaching its decision. As described in N.L. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003):
Clear and convincing evidence is defined as “an intermediate level of proof [that] entails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.”
Even if the appellate court “may have decided this case differently had we been the trier of fact, ‘it is not the function of this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.’” J.B. v. C.S., 186 So. 3d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (quoting In the Interest of R.D.D., 518 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). The record in this case includes competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome Appellant’s prima facie case for the charge in question.
Accordingly, the judgment on appeal is AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Boston v. State, 260 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Gainey v. State, 276 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
Bryant v. State, 325 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gabryl Mark Sullivan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Catalano v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- C.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- Schofield v. State, 246 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Bryant Commander v. State, 246 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- G.K. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 186 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)