Pierce Nelson Hoempler v. State of Florida

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied Pierce Nelson Hoempler's hybrid petition for prohibition and certiorari. The court held that the trial court's findings rejecting Stand Your Ground immunity were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its treatment of a 911 recording or testimony concerning an earlier threat. The court concluded that neither prohibition nor certiorari relief was warranted.

Holdings

1. Hoempler was not entitled to immunity because the trial court's supported factual findings established that a reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances would not have believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.
2. Although the 911 recording qualified for admission as an excited utterance or spontaneous statement, the trial court did not commit reversible legal error because it admitted or considered the call but declined to credit Hoempler's explanation in light of contrary forensic and testimonial evidence.
3. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by admitting testimony about Hoempler's earlier encounter with Cruz because the testimony was relevant to the chronology and context of the shootings and was not used as substantive proof in the immunity analysis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hoempler was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution under sections 776.032 and 776.012, Florida Statutes.
2. Whether the trial court's treatment of Hoempler's 911 recording constituted a legally cognizable error warranting certiorari relief.
3. Whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony concerning Cruz's earlier encounter with Hoempler and his threat to shoot her.

Disposition

writ_denied