## Facts

- John Dorsey, a convicted felon, attended a late-night party and armed himself with a concealed handgun earlier in the evening.
- Stephen “Bo” Bunting and John Lott, who had been drinking heavily and were described as prone to fighting, confronted Dorsey while others formed a semicircle around him near his SUV.
- Lott accused Dorsey of bumping into him; witnesses described escalating verbal hostility, with Bunting encouraging Lott to fight.
- Lott punched Dorsey hard in the face, causing Dorsey to fall back against his vehicle.
- Immediately after being struck, Dorsey drew the concealed firearm and fired one shot at Lott and one shot at Bunting, killing both.
- Medical testimony indicated bullet trajectories consistent with both victims leaning forward when shot.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for second-degree murder under the “depraved mind” element, or instead supported, at most, manslaughter.
2. Whether the jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force erroneously suggested a duty to retreat contrary to Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute, and if so, whether the error was harmless.

## Decision

- Reversed the two second-degree murder convictions because the evidence did not establish the “depraved mind” element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Held the shootings were supported by evidence of an impulsive, unlawful overreaction to a sudden attack, consistent with manslaughter rather than second-degree murder.
- Held the trial court’s deadly-force self-defense instruction was erroneous because it suggested a duty to retreat inconsistent with the applicable statutory framework.
- Concluded the instructional error was not harmless given the centrality of self-defense and the degree of homicide.
- Affirmed convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and carrying a concealed firearm.
- Remanded for a new trial on manslaughter charges with correct self-defense instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree murder requires an unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another that evinces a “depraved mind regardless of human life,” typically shown by ill will, hatred, spite, evil intent, or equivalent reckless disregard.
- A sudden, excessive response to an immediate assault may support manslaughter where the proof shows an impulsive overreaction rather than depraved-mind conduct.
- When self-defense is a live issue, jury instructions must accurately state the governing law; an instruction implying a duty to retreat contrary to Stand Your Ground principles can require reversal if not harmless.
- Weapons convictions may be affirmed where independently supported by proof that the defendant, as a felon, possessed and concealed a firearm, regardless of errors affecting homicide counts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the weapons convictions but reversed the second-degree murder convictions because the evidence supported, at most, manslaughter and because the jury received an incorrect deadly-force instruction implying a duty to retreat; it remanded for a new trial on manslaughter with proper self-defense instructions.


Dorsey v. State, 74 So. 3d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2011)