O'Neal v. State
The Second District affirmed O'Neal's convictions and life sentences for first-degree murder, attempted murder, arson, and aggravated child abuse, rejecting challenges to the denial of his Stand Your Ground immunity motion, admission of crime-scene and autopsy photographs, limitations on voir dire questioning about jurors' religious beliefs, lack of a colloquy on his waiver of the right to testify, and exclusion of PTSD expert testimony offered to support self-defense. The court held the State met its clear-and-convincing burden to defeat immunity, the photographs were relevant to cause of death and arson, voir dire limits on collective religious questioning were proper where individualized questions were permitted, no colloquy is required for waiver of the right to testify, and the PTSD expert's testimony was properly excluded for lack of factual predicate.
Key facts
- O'Neal was convicted in the trial court of first-degree murder, attempted murder, arson, and aggravated child abuse, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The defendant claimed Stand Your Ground immunity and self-defense, arguing he acted in response to imminent threats, and sought to introduce expert testimony on PTSD to support his self-defense theory.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This lengthy opinion is useful to practitioners on several recurring fronts: it applies the clear-and-convincing standard for defeating Stand-Your-Ground immunity on facts involving a fleeing victim, it addresses… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.