Pages v. Seliman-Tapia
134 So. 3d 536, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3620 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, a person who uses non-deadly force in reasonable defense of themselves or another is entitled to immunity from civil action under section 776.012 of the Florida Statutes, even if that person was simultaneously 'engaged in unlawful activity' that would disqualify them from immunity under section 776.013.
Facts:
- On December 27, 2009, Julio Rafael Seliman-Tapia confronted Francisco Pages ('Dr. Pages') in a mall parking lot, accusing him of parking too close to his car and activating its anti-theft disabling device.
- Dr. Pages became agitated, screamed, waved his arms, and acted aggressively toward Tapia.
- Dr. Pages continued his confrontational behavior by bumping Tapia with his chest.
- Sonia Pages ('Mrs. Pages'), Dr. Pages's wife, positioned herself between the two men.
- Dr. Pages then turned and rushed aggressively toward Tapia's disabled wife, Ms. Singer, who was telling Dr. Pages to calm down.
- Fearing for his wife's safety, Tapia rushed toward Dr. Pages and pushed him down, causing Dr. Pages to fall and hit his head.
- Mrs. Pages alleged that Tapia made physical contact with her during this altercation, causing her back to hurt for a few days.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Tapia with felony battery on Dr. Pages and misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages.
- Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Tapia pled guilty to misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages, and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the felony battery charge.
- Dr. and Mrs. Pages filed a civil suit against Tapia for assault, battery, and loss of consortium in a Florida trial court.
- Tapia moved to dismiss the civil suit, asserting immunity under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law.
- The trial court referred the immunity issue to a general magistrate, who conducted an evidentiary hearing.
- The general magistrate issued a report finding that Tapia was entitled to immunity and recommending the case be dismissed.
- The Pages filed exceptions to the magistrate's report with the trial court.
- The trial court denied the Pages' exceptions, adopted the magistrate's report, and entered a final order dismissing the Pages' amended complaint with prejudice.
- The Pages, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal; Tapia 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:
Does a person's engagement in an unlawful activity, which would bar them from 'Stand Your Ground' immunity under Florida Statute § 776.013, also prevent them from claiming immunity under the separate provisions of § 776.012 for the justified use of non-deadly force in defense of another?
Opinions:
Majority - Emas, J.
No. A person's engagement in an unlawful activity does not prevent them from claiming immunity under § 776.012, which provides an alternative basis for immunity from that in § 776.013. The Florida legislature provided distinct statutory paths to claim immunity. Section 776.013, which governs the use of both deadly and non-deadly force, requires that the person seeking immunity not be 'engaged in unlawful activity.' In contrast, section 776.012 specifically addresses the justified use of non-deadly force and does not contain this requirement. The court found that even if Tapia's guilty plea to misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages constituted 'unlawful activity,' it was irrelevant to his claim of immunity under § 776.012. Because the evidence showed Tapia used non-deadly force (a push) based on a reasonable belief that it was necessary to defend his wife from Dr. Pages's imminent use of unlawful force, he was justified and therefore immune from civil action under § 776.012.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' immunity statute contains independent and alternative grounds for justification. It establishes that the 'engaged in unlawful activity' disqualifier found in § 776.013 does not apply to claims of immunity for non-deadly force asserted under § 776.012. This preserves the long-standing common law right to use non-deadly force in self-defense without the added statutory restriction. For future cases, this means defendants may have multiple avenues to immunity, and a failure to qualify under one section of the statute does not preclude success under another, particularly when only non-deadly force was used.
