Cote v. Jowers
515 So. 2d 339, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2570, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10910 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force is justifiable if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves while resisting an attempt to commit a burglary or an assault in their dwelling; a person attacked in their own home has no duty to retreat.
Facts:
- Michael Bessent was trespassing on the property of his ex-wife, Deborah Bessent, where he was harassing her and being abusive.
- Michael Jowers, who lived at the residence, arrived and asked Bessent to leave.
- Bessent shoved Jowers, initiating a physical scuffle that ended when Jowers pinned Bessent to the ground.
- Jowers released Bessent on the condition that Bessent would calm down and leave, but Bessent instead began kicking Jowers.
- Jowers retreated into the house, closed the door, and instructed that the police be called.
- Bessent followed Jowers to the house and began beating on the front door.
- Jowers retrieved a pistol, opened the door slightly to display it, and again told Bessent to leave.
- Bessent forced the door open, entered the home, and advanced menacingly toward Jowers, taunting him while Jowers backed away at gunpoint.
- After warning Bessent not to come closer, Jowers shot and killed Bessent when Bessent lunged at him.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Bessent Cote, as personal representative for the Estate of Michael Bessent, filed a civil suit for wrongful death against Michael Jowers in a Florida trial court.
- Jowers asserted the affirmative defense of self-defense.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Jowers.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for Jowers.
- Cote filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Cote, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Jowers is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the jury's verdict finding that Jowers acted in justifiable self-defense when using deadly force against an unarmed individual who forcibly entered his home and menacingly advanced upon him contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Nimmons
The jury's verdict in favor of Jowers was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The uncontradicted facts show that Bessent was the aggressor who, after losing a physical altercation, forcibly entered Jowers' dwelling. Once inside, Bessent continued to menacingly advance on Jowers, taunting him despite Jowers displaying a pistol and retreating. A homeowner is not required to use 'heroic efforts at the risk of life and limb to protect those who would break into our homes and assault us,' and the jury could reasonably conclude that Jowers was justified in using deadly force. The court affirmed the judgment.
Dissenting - Judge Shivers
The killing was unnecessary and the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Bessent was unarmed and Jowers had already physically overpowered him in the yard. Jowers was safely inside the home before he chose to reopen the door and confront Bessent with a firearm, unnecessarily escalating the situation. There was nothing to cause Jowers to reasonably fear for his life from an intoxicated, unarmed man he had already bested. Furthermore, the trial court's jury instructions were fundamentally misleading because they failed to explain that deadly force is justifiable only when 'necessary,' not merely as a response to any felony committed within a dwelling.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms Florida's 'Castle Doctrine,' granting substantial legal protection to individuals who use deadly force against intruders in their homes. The decision emphasizes that the homeowner's reasonable perception of a threat is paramount, and it diminishes the significance of whether the intruder was armed. This precedent makes it more difficult to successfully bring a wrongful death suit against a homeowner who claims self-defense, so long as the intruder entered forcibly and acted aggressively. The dissent, however, raises a critical counterargument about the 'necessity' requirement, suggesting that the doctrine should not provide a 'carte blanche' to kill an intruder if the threat is not truly life-threatening.
