Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealmotionfelonywrit of prohibitionmotion to dismiss
statutemotionfelonywrit of prohibitionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Bellamy v. State, 285 Kan. 346, 172 P.3d 10
View Case »
People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, 996 N.E.2d 607, 374 Ill.Dec. 912
View Case »
Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879
View Case »
People v. Gershenhorn, 225 Cal.App.2d 122, 37 Cal.Rptr. 176
View Case »
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254, 68 USLW 4236, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2409, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3223, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 1642, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 216
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cummings v. State, 310 So.3d 155, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D216

Facts

On November 9, 2018, Colleen Cummings and her boyfriend, Mr. Blankenship, invited Mr. Cottrill and his girlfriend to their trailer after a night at a bar. A dispute escalated into a physical fight between Mr. Cottrill and Mr. Blankenship, during which Ms. Cummings attempted to intervene. After firing warning shots and demanding Mr. Cottrill leave, she shot him when he continued to fight. The Circuit Court denied her motion to dismiss the charge, stating she was not justified in using deadly force.

Ms. Cummings filed a motion to dismiss the charge, asserting that she is immune from prosecution under section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2018).

Issue

Was Colleen Cummings entitled to immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground law for shooting Mr. Cottrill?

Was Colleen Cummings entitled to immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground law for shooting Mr. Cottrill?

Rule

Under Florida Statutes sections 776.012(2) and 776.013(1)(b), a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Section 776.032(1) states generally that any person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in sections 776.012 and 776.013 is immune from prosecution.

Analysis

The court evaluated whether Ms. Cummings' use of deadly force was justified based on the circumstances as they appeared to her at the time. It found that Mr. Cottrill was committing a forcible felony by continuing to fight after being told to leave, and that the State failed to prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that Ms. Cummings acted justifiably under the law.

The State fell short of the high mark of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cottrill was not committing a forcible felony inside the trailer when Ms. Cummings shot him.

Conclusion

The District Court of Appeal granted Ms. Cummings' petition for a writ of prohibition, ruling that she was entitled to immunity from prosecution for the aggravated battery charge.

We, therefore, grant her petition for a writ of prohibition.

Who won?

Colleen Cummings prevailed in the case because the court found that she was justified in using deadly force against Mr. Cottrill, who was committing a forcible felony at the time.

The record below reflects both kinds of revocation. Again, it was undisputed that Mr. Cottrill was told, expressly and repeatedly, to leave the trailer prior to when Ms. Cummings fired the shotgun, twice in warning and once in earnest, at Mr. Cottrill.

You must be