Dorsey v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16361, 74 So.3d 521, 2011 WL 4949803 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An impulsive killing in response to a physical attack, without evidence of prior ill will, constitutes manslaughter, not second-degree murder, because it lacks the requisite 'depraved mind.' Furthermore, a defendant engaged in an unlawful activity, such as being a felon in possession of a firearm, is not entitled to a 'Stand Your Ground' jury instruction and is instead subject to the common law duty to retreat.
Facts:
- John Dorsey, a convicted felon, attended a large 'keg' party where most guests were high school students.
- During the party, Dorsey armed himself with a gun following an unrelated dispute.
- Later, John Lott and Stephen 'Bo' Bunting, along with several friends, formed a group and surrounded Dorsey by his vehicle.
- Lott, who was heavily intoxicated and angry, began cursing at Dorsey, and Bunting encouraged Lott to fight.
- Lott struck Dorsey hard in the face with his fist, causing Dorsey to fall back against his vehicle.
- Immediately after being punched, Dorsey pulled out his gun and shot Lott and Bunting once each at close range, killing both.
- After the shootings, Dorsey fled the scene in his vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- John Dorsey was charged by indictment in the trial court with first-degree murder and second-degree murder for two shooting deaths.
- At trial, Dorsey moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence only supported manslaughter; the trial court denied the motions.
- The trial court, over Dorsey's objection, gave the jury the standard 'Stand Your Ground' instruction and refused Dorsey's specially requested instruction on the common law duty to retreat.
- The jury found Dorsey guilty of two counts of second-degree murder and two firearms charges.
- Dorsey (appellant) appealed his convictions to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, which eliminates the duty to retreat in self-defense, apply to a defendant who was engaged in an unlawful activity by being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm at the time of the confrontation?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No. Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law does not apply to a defendant engaged in an unlawful activity. First, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for second-degree murder. The crime requires an act evincing a 'depraved mind,' defined as ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent. Dorsey's act of shooting the victims immediately after being punched by Lott was an 'impulsive overreaction to an attack,' not an act born of a depraved mind, making manslaughter the appropriate charge. Second, the court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions on self-defense. The 'Stand Your Ground' law, which removes the duty to retreat, explicitly applies only to a person 'not engaged in an unlawful activity.' The court held that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon constitutes such 'unlawful activity.' Therefore, Dorsey was not entitled to the 'Stand Your Ground' instruction. Instead, the common law duty to retreat applied, and the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury on this standard warranted a new trial on manslaughter charges.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies two aspects of Florida homicide and self-defense law. It reinforces the distinction between second-degree murder and manslaughter by emphasizing that an immediate, reactive killing lacks the 'depraved mind' element required for murder. More importantly, the case establishes a critical limitation on the state's 'Stand Your Ground' law, holding that individuals who are simultaneously engaged in unlawful conduct cannot claim its protection. This prevents the statute from being used as a shield by those already breaking the law, thereby narrowing the scope of this powerful self-defense justification and preserving the common law duty to retreat for a specific class of defendants.
