Call us now:
Cassanova Gabriel v State 4D2024-1502 (4th DCA October 16th 2024) – Self-Defense in Florida
When Florida created it’s Stand Your Ground law, it recognized something that Floridians have used and relied on in many aspects of life as far as anyone can remember – when a person uses self defense they are not the wrongdoer and they should be protected from being treated as if they were. Self-Defense In Florida means having a pretrial hearing where a judge can listen to the facts and if the judge thinks you were acting in self defense you are protected from prosecution. Fl. St. 776.032. That means you don’t have to face the stress and risk of a jury trial.
So most people would rightly assume (regarding self-defense in Florida) that if you are attacked or threatened you can defend yourself or others appropriately, end of story. But what they don’t assume, is that if given the chance, the State of Florida will push the boundaries of what we all think is reasonable and correct to support whatever concept aids in a conviction. Here in the case above, the State of Florida took the position, and convinced a judge to agree, that Floridians have the right to defend themselves from humans, but not animals in immunity hearings.
Gabriel faced charges related to animal cruelty and discharging a firearm after a confrontation with an aggressive pit bull while walking his dog. Since he was a Floridian, he relied upon immunity – which is normal for self-defense in Florida. He argued that he used deadly force under self-defense in Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground statutes, which he believed warranted immunity from prosecution.
The trial court ruled against him, claiming that the Stand-Your-Ground statute only applies to interactions between people, not involving animals. Gabriel appealed to the higher Court (the 4th DCA), claiming the lower Court was wrong. The appellate court agreed, and ordered that Mr. Gabriel have the hearing he demanded where the judge would have to determine if he acted in self defense against an off leash pit bull.
The Court made very clear “a person is immune from criminal prosecution for the use of deadly force against an animal where the person has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another”.
The court clarified the application of Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) statutes, specifically sections 776.012 and 776.032, regarding the use of deadly force. The court emphasized that section 776.012(2) permits the use of deadly force not only against a person but also against an animal if the user reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others. The higher Court explained its reasoning here:
The petitioner’s motion to dismiss travels on the authorization of deadly (not nondeadly) force in defense of person, specifically under section 776.012(2)’s use of the phrase “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” Thus, we agree that section 776.012(2)’s plain, unambiguous text does not require that the deadly force be used against a person, rather than against an animal. And we will not add words limiting section 776.012(2)’s application to force solely against persons and not animals. See Fagan v. Jackson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 379 So. 3d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (“We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.” (quoting Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999))
The court argued that the statutory text does not limit immunity to situations involving human victims, thus supporting the notion that a person could be immune from criminal charges for using deadly force against an animal under specific circumstances. So the lower Court improperly restricted the right to self-defense in Florida.
Furthermore, the court invoked the rule of lenity, asserting that any ambiguity in the statutes should favor the accused. Ultimately, the court quashed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, underscoring the necessity for a hearing on the petitioner’s claim of SYG immunity.
We don’t get a full view of the motives of all the parties involved, but the Court gave some insight into what the State was concerned with in a footnote:
We recognize our opinion may make criminal prosecutions for animal cruelty more challenging for the state when a defendant claims self-defense under section 776.012(2). However, it is up to the legislature to address the issue as it sees fit.
Rest assured, this case helps ensure that no prosecutor should be able to deprive you of your right to self defense immunity because they really like dogs, or are on a mission to put humans and animals on the same level in Florida law. That doesn’t mean they didn’t try, and it doesn’t mean that the forces of the State won’t take liberties with your freedom for their own designs.
Certified Criminal Trial Expert Lawyer Matt Landsman can help you with your case. If you’ve been charged with Animal Cruelty, or any case involving self-defense, and you need help–call, text, or email Landsman Law.
