Date: June 4, 2018

To: Bruce Colton

State Attorney, 19th Judicial Circuit

From: Steve Gosnell

Assistant State Attorney, Major Crimes Division

Memorandum Re: Homicide of Dennis Hicks

911 Report of the Shooting:

On November 16, 2017, a shooting occurred near 7:03 pm at 53rd Avenue and 20th Street
in Indian River County. The incident resulted in the death of Dennis Hicks from gunshot
wounds. Mr. Hicks was the driver and sole occupant of a red Toyota Corolla. The
shooter was identified as Timothy Sartori.

Mr. Sartori was the driver of a Mazda 3 with a front passenger, his girlfriend, Melissa
Antler. 911 communications received multiple calls regarding the shooting. The shooter,
Mr. Sartori, made one of the 911 calls. Mr. Sartori identified himself to the 911 call taker
and provided his cell phone number. He told the call taker that he shot someone, in self-
defense, at the corner of State Road 60 (20th Street) and 53rd Avenue. He also described
the car he was driving and his location in the parking lot of Jimmy John’s on 20th Street.
He said that he was not making himself known because people were panicking. Mr.
Sartori said that he did not know the person he shot. He said that he had his window
down and there was a verbal exchange between himself and another male in a red Toyota.
Mr. Sartori stated that the male said to him “I’m going to put a bullet in your ass” and
then the male reached for something. Mr. Sartori stated, “I had my gun and I opened fire
on him”. On the recording of the 911 call, Mr. Sartori’s voice sounded calm rather than
excited or angry.

Sartori’s Contact with Law Enforcement at Scene:

Deputy Nieves learned from the 911 call center that the car involved in the shooting, a
Mazda 3, was parked by Jimmy Johns located at 5445 20th Street. Deputy Nieves arrived
and found the car. The silver Mazda 3 had two occupants sitting inside it. Mr. Sartori was
the driver of the car and Melissa Antler was in the front passenger seat. Deputy Nieves
asked Ms. Antler and Mr. Sartori if they were injured and both replied “no”.
Unprompted, Mr. Sartori said, “I opened fire on that guy”. Deputy Nieves asked Mr.
Sartori where the firearm was located and Mr. Sartori replied “in the cup holder”.
Deputy Nieves observed a black semi-automatic firearm in the car. The firearm had the
slide locked to the rear indicating that the magazine was empty.

1
Mr. Sartori was secured inside Deputy Nieves’ patrol car. Deputy Nieves then asked him
if he knew the other driver. Mr. Sartori replied “I don’t know who he is, he reached for a
gun and I then opened fire on him”. Deputy Nieves asked Mr. Sartori if he saw the gun
and he said “I thought I saw it, I didn’t hesitate”.

Prior to Miranda warnings, Deputy Nieves reported that Mr. Satori voluntarily made a
statement. Mr. Sartori said that he and the other driver were both driving eastbound on
20th Street. The other driver was driving erratically and almost rear ended another car.
Mr. Hicks was in the inside lane and Mr. Sartori was in the outside lane. Mr. Sartori
looked over at the other driver who yelled at him. The other driver’s passenger side front
and back windows were down and Mr. Sartori’s driver’s side window was down. Mr.
Sartori then shouted at the other driver “what’s your problem dude” and the other driver
shouted back “shut the fuck up or I’ll put a bullet in you”. Mr. Sartori shouted back at the
other driver “get the fuck out of here” at which point he observed the other driver reach
for something. Mr. Sartori reached for his firearm and opened fire on the other driver.
Deputy Nieves again asked Mr. Sartori if he saw the firearm and Mr. Sartori replied “I
saw him reach for it and I didn’t want him to hurt my girlfriend”. Three separate times,
at the scene, Mr. Sartori asked if Mr. Hicks’s gun had been found by law enforcement.
Both Ms. Antler and Mr. Sartori were transported to the Indian River County Sheriff’s
Office Criminal Investigation Division for interviews. Ms. Antler and Mr. Sartori were
initially placed inside separate interview rooms.

Statements by Ms. Antler:

After reviewing the 911 call made by the Mr. Sartori, Detective Hau made contact with
Melissa Antler and he read Miranda warnings to Ms. Antler. Ms. Antler said that she
understood her rights and was willing to make a statement. Detective Lester conducted
the interview.

Ms. Antler said that she and Mr. Sartori have been in a relationship for approximately
five years. Ms. Antler is studying for a post-graduate degree at UCF in Orlando. On
November 16, 2017, she traveled from Orlando to Sebastian for the weekend and arrived
in the evening. She met with Mr. Sartori and they decided to go out for dinner. Neither
of them was consuming alcoholic beverages. Ms. Antler said Mr. Sartori was driving her
silver Mazda 3 and she was in the front passenger seat. They traveled south on 58th
Avenue to go to Sonny’s BBQ located at 20th Street. On 58th Avenue while turning onto
20th Street, she recalled a car getting into their lane of travel but said it was insignificant
and not the red Toyota involved in the shooting. They came to a stop light located at 53rd
Avenue and 20th Street.

As they sat at the light, a red Toyota pulled up next to them on the driver’s side.
According to Ms. Antler, at some point, the sole occupant of the other car began yelling
at Mr. Sartori for an unknown reason. During the exchange of words, the other occupant
stated to Mr. Sartori “do you want me to put a bullet in your ass?” and then the occupant
made some type of movement. Ms. Antler could not verbally describe the movement.

2
Once she saw the occupant make a move, she became scared and noticed Mr. Sartori
reaching for his gun. At this point, Ms. Antler said she “balled up” and hid her head by
her knees. She heard between three to ten rapid gunshots.

Once the shooting stopped, she stated that Mr. Sartori made an immediate right turn at the
53rd Avenue light and attempted to contact 911 but the call would not go through. Ms.
Antler said that Mr. Sartori was the one who first initiated the contact with 911 on his
phone. She then called 911 from her phone. Once connected to 911, she handed the
phone to Mr. Sartori. As Ms. Antler was visibly upset during her interview, investigators
offered the services of a victim advocate to her. Ms. Antler gave consent to search her
cellular telephone to determine how many times she called 911. Her phone displayed five
outgoing calls to 911 between 7:05 pm and 7:06 pm.

In a follow-up interview with Detective Lester at Attorney Metcalf’s office, Ms. Antler
gave further statements. She said that Mr. Hicks slowly approached the stop light at 53rd
Avenue. She stated that Mr. Hicks was staring at her car and Mr. Sartori. During the
verbal exchange between Mr. Sartori and Mr. Hicks she described Mr. Hicks as being
very mad. Before she “balled up”, Ms. Antler did not see anything in Mr. Hicks’s hands.

On May 18, 2018, pursuant to an investigative subpoena, Ms. Antler, accompanied by

Attorney Metcalf, gave another detailed statement, at the State Attorney’s Office, to
Detective Hau, ASA Taylor and me. Ms. Antler’s statement was consistent with her
previous statements. When questioned, she gave details about a black vehicle that turned
in a wide fashion from 58th Avenue onto 20th Street. The black vehicle came close to
entering the lane that her car was in. She did not recall hearing honking. She described
Mr. Hicks as staring in a “blank, angry” manner into her car as he approached the stop
light at 53rd Avenue. She stated that as Mr. Hicks sat stationary at the light he continued
to stare at them in the same manner. Ms. Antler stated that Mr. Hicks did not break eye
contact with them until after he made the statement “I’ll put a bullet in your ass” and
made a movement that made her fearful he was reaching for a gun. After Mr. Hicks said
he would put a bullet in Mr. Sartori and made a movement, she put her head between her
knees to “ball up”. Ms. Antler stated that she bent down and “balled up” because she
was fearful she would be shot by Mr. Hicks. The last thing she saw, before the shooting,
was Mr. Sartori getting his pistol from the front of his body. She did not know where he
retrieved the pistol from.

Statements by Mr. Sartori at the IRSO:

On the night of the shooting, Detective Lester interviewed Mr. Sartori at the IRSO.
Detective Lester read Mr. Sartori his Miranda warnings. Mr. Sartori told Detective Lester
that he understood his rights and was willing to speak with him. Mr. Sartori said that he
was driving his girlfriend’s car south on 58th Avenue. While sitting at the intersection of
20th Street and 58th Avenue waiting to turn east, he could hear someone yelling in one of
the nearby cars. As he looked to his left, he noticed that it was not coming from the car
on his left but from the car behind that car, a red Toyota Corolla. He could hear the male
yelling but could not make out what the male was saying as the window was up. As the

3
light turned green and all three cars began to make the eastbound turn onto 20th Street, the
driver of the red Toyota Corolla honked and tailgated another car. The other car then
moved into the turning lane to yield to the red Toyota Corolla. Mr. Sartori stated that the
other driver’s actions did not cut him off or interact, in any manner, with the car he was
driving.

Mr. Sartori said that he thought that he reached the light at 53rd Avenue before the red
Toyota did and that was odd as it seemed as if the driver of the Toyota was in a hurry. As
both vehicles were sitting at the 53rd Avenue light, Mr. Sartori was keeping an eye on the
driver of the red Toyota Corolla because of his prior actions with the other vehicle. He
then noticed that the driver of the red Toyota Corolla was angrily yelling again. Mr.
Sartori lowered his car window to better see and hear what the driver of the Toyota. The
driver of the Toyota also lowered his passenger side window. Mr. Sartori and the other
driver made direct eye contact. An exchange of words ensued between himself and the
other driver. The driver of the red Toyota Corolla yelled “what the fuck are you looking
at” and “I’ll fuck you up”. Mr. Sartori said “fuck you, dude”.

Mr. Sartori asked if a toxicology report would be done on Mr. Hicks. Mr. Sartori said by
the other driver’s actions and demeanor that he suspected him to be “high on drugs” and
this “freaked out” Mr. Sartori even more. When asked why he believed Mr. Hicks was on
drugs, he said, “Just the way he was acting was nuts. From the second that I saw him at
that light to when he was like almost rear-ending the car in front of him”.

During this exchange, Mr. Sartori stated that he thought that the driver of the red Toyota
Corolla was going to get out of his car because he saw his arm attempting to open the
door. In response, Mr. Sartori locked the door on his car. The other driver was yelling
“get the fuck out”. Mr. Sartori stated that the driver of the red Toyota Corolla was
challenging him to get out of the car. Mr. Sartori told the driver of the red Toyota Corolla
“fuck off man” and the other driver became more irate. Mr. Sartori said both cars were of
a similar height and he could only see the other driver from the elbow up. The driver of
the red Toyota Corolla stated “I’ll put a bullet in you”. After making this statement, Mr.
Sartori stated that driver of the red Toyota Corolla then reached with his right hand down
into what he thought was the center console. Mr. Sartori thought that the driver of the red
Toyota Corolla was reaching for a gun so he placed his hand on his gun but did not raise
it into view. Mr. Sartori then stated that driver of the red Toyota Corolla made a motion as
if he was drawing a gun with his right hand. Mr. Sartori said he then saw Mr. Hicks raise
his arm and he saw a pistol but could not determine type of pistol because it was dark. In
response, Mr. Sartori then pointed his gun at the driver of the red Toyota Corolla and
fired. Mr. Sartori’s pistol was not holstered and on his lap. Mr. Sartori carries his pistol
in a holster at the small of his back. Mr. Sartori said that the pistol digs into his back
when he is seated in a car so he puts the firearm in the cup holder or on his lap when
driving.

Mr. Sartori told Detective Lester that he was in fear for his life and for his girlfriend,
Melissa Antler. During the shooting, Mr. Sartori advised that it didn’t appear as if he was
hitting the driver of the red Toyota Corolla, with his shots, as the driver was still moving.

4
Mr. Sartori then placed both hands on his firearm and continued to fire until the pistol’s
slide locked back and he was out of ammunition. Mr. Sartori was asked if he thought the
other driver was going to shoot him and he replied:

SARTORI: I did one hundred percent, with the way he was acting, like,
everything leading up to that. When he said, I am going to put a bullet in your ass,
and he turned and looked, with it here, I was like, he is going for a gun for sure,
and I already put my hand on my gun and then when he lifted up and I saw, I saw
a gun. And I just opened fire.
DETECTIVE: Okay.
SARTORI: I thought for like, a second, about like going into the parking lot there,
but I didn’t want to take my eyes off of him and like get shot in the back.

Mr. Sartori gave consent to search his cellular telephone to determine how many times he
called 911. His phone displayed six outgoing 911 calls between 7:03 pm and 7:06 pm.
Mr. Sartori was asked why he remained on the scene of the shooting.

DETECTIVE: Why didn’t you want to flee the scene?

SARTORI: Because it is the wrong thing to do.
DETECTIVE: For sure, I, I’m just asking. I mean
SARTORI: I shot someone.
DETECTIVE: You go to look at it, in my job, I don’t get people that ever stick
around the scene, so when they stick around I like to know why they did, you
know what I mean.
SARTORI: Cause I just shot somebody.
DETECTIVE: Okay.
SARTORI: You know. I am pretty sure I killed him.

Witnesses in the Immediate Vicinity:

On the night of the shooting, other motorists in the vicinity of the shooting gave
statements to deputies regarding their observations of the shooting. In an effort to fully
comprehend the nature and quality of each witness’s observations, impressions and
experiences of the shooting, the Assistant State Attorneys assigned to investigate the
matter conducted their own independent, detailed interviews of these witnesses at the
State Attorney’s Office. A summary of each witness’s testimony follows.

Annemarie Yanko was in her car traveling east on 20th Street with Henry Swihart who
was driving her car. They were in a vehicle stopped at the light at 53rd Avenue and 20th
Street, directly behind Mr. Sartori’s car. Two figures were in Mr. Sartori’s car. Ms.
Yanko said that her window was partially down. Ms. Yanko and Mr. Swihart neither
heard nor saw any altercation prior to the shooting. Ms. Yanko said the radio in the car
may have been on. Mr. Swihart said that he and Ms. Yanko may have been talking at the
time of the shooting. They saw a flash and heard gunfire come from the shooter’s car.
Ms. Yanko described the shots to sound like firecrackers. They were able see the driver

5
holding a gun and firing into the Mr. Hicks’s car. The shooting was continuous and there
were no pauses between the shots.

Mr. Swihart and Ms. Yanko then saw Mr. Sartori drive into the parking lot of Jimmy
Johns and park his vehicle. They followed Mr. Sartori’s car into parking lot in an attempt
to get the license plate number. They then returned to the area of Mr. Hicks’s car to
check on his condition. Mr. Swihart reported that Mr. Hicks was seated and leaning
towards the passenger seat. Mr. Swihart did not recall the position of Mr. Hick’s arms.
Mr. Swihart assumed Mr. Hicks’s car was in park as it did not roll but he did not see
anyone put the car in park. Mr. Swihart mistakenly thought the shooter’s girlfriend was
with the bystanders at the scene by Mr. Hicks’s vehicle immediately after the shooting
but added that he never saw the face of the person in the car with Mr. Sartori. Ms. Yanko
and Mr. Swihart were cooperative with the investigation. As Ms. Yanko and Mr. Swihart
did not notice anything amiss until the shots occurred, their testimony does not assist in
countering Ms. Antler’s and Mr. Sartori’s initial statements regarding Mr. Hick’s alleged
threat and his movement in the seconds before the shooting.

Deborah Krauss was driving east on 20th Street with her husband, Robert Krauss, who
was in the front passenger seat. Mr. Krauss stated that they were stopped at the red
traffic signal located at 53rd Avenue and 20th Street. Mr. Sartori’s car was in the center
lane of travel in the eastbound lanes and the Krauss car was in the right lane of eastbound
traffic, directly to the right of Mr. Sartori. The windows of the car were up and Mrs.
Krauss was speaking to her husband. Deborah Krauss and Robert Krauss neither heard
nor saw any dispute prior to the shooting.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Krauss saw the muzzle flash from a pistol come from the shooter’s car
and heard the shots. Mrs. Krauss described the sound of shots to be like fireworks and she
initially wondered if something was going on at Dodgertown. Mr. Krauss described the
sound as “pows”. When she looked after she heard the shots, Mrs. Krauss described Mr.
Hicks as possibly having his hands out and leaning forward. As the gunfire started, Mrs.
Krauss turned right into the parking area near Applebee’s and the gunfire continued as
she pulled away. Mr. Krauss heard twelve to fifteen shots. Mr. Krauss then got out of the
car and went to check on Mr. Hicks. He said Mr. Hicks was leaning towards the
passenger side of his vehicle. Robert Krauss assumed that the car was in park or neutral
because it was not moving. Mr. Krauss did not place the car in park. Robert Krauss tried
to assist with directing traffic to avoid an accident with Mr. Hicks’s car. Mr. and Mrs.
Krauss did not notice anything atypical until hearing the shots. Their testimony does not
defeat Ms. Antler’s and Mr. Sartori’s statements regarding Mr. Hick’s alleged threat and
movement immediately before the shooting. Mr. and Mrs. Krauss confirmed Mr.
Sartori’s statement that he did not flee and he immediately pulled over after the shooting.

Bobby Fletcher said he was traveling east on 20th Street and was one lane over to the right
and one car behind Mr. Sartori’s car. Once stopped at the traffic signal at 53rd Avenue
and 20th Street, Fletcher heard seven to eight gunshots and he saw, through the back
window of Mr. Sartori’s car, a silhouette of a person pointing a gun towards Mr. Hicks’s
car. Mr. Fletcher described the volume of the shots to be subtle. He described shots then

6
a pause and more shots. His windows were up and the radio was probably on. Mr.
Fletcher did not see or hear any altercation before the shots. Mr. Fletcher then saw Mr.
Sartori’s car pull off 20th Street and into the area of the Applebee’s parking lot. Mr.
Fletcher confirmed Mr. Sartori’s statement that he did not flee. Mr. Fletcher’s location
was in a separate travel lane and he was at least two car lengths behind Mr. Sartori’s car.
With the radio likely on and his car windows closed, Mr. Fletcher did not take note of
anything until he heard the gunshots. Mr. Fletcher’s testimony does not assist in
countering the statements of Ms. Antler and Mr. Sartori regarding the alleged threat and
movement of Mr. Hicks immediately before the shooting.

Natalie Holtom had pulled out of the Sam’s parking lot located at 5565 20th Street and
drove east. She was in the left turn lane slightly behind and in a lane to the left of Mr.
Hicks’s car. She was on her phone talking to a friend at the time. Ms. Holtom reported
that her windows were up at the time of the shooting. Ms. Holtom did not hear any
confrontation. She heard what sounded like fireworks, looked to her right and saw a gun
in the driver’s window area of the shooter’s car. She saw Mr. Sartori’s face and described
him as looking “determined” rather than fearful. She saw the muzzle flash coming from
the firearm and she dunked down in her front seat until all was quiet. She did not see or
hear any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting. After the shooting, as she
congregated with other bystanders, she mistakenly believed one of the bystanders to be
the shooter. As Ms. Holtom was driving and speaking on her cell phone, she did not
notice anything unusual until she heard the shots. Her testimony fails to successfully foil
Ms. Antler’s and Mr. Sartori’s claims regarding Mr. Hick’s alleged threat and movement
in the seconds before the shooting.

Michael Clemente-Botke was driving, with his three-year-old son, eastbound on 20th
Street in a black Acura SUV. He stopped at the light at 53rd Avenue in the left turn lane.
He was waiting for the light to turn green so he could make a U-turn to drive west on 20th
Street. As he was waiting, he heard approximately eight rapid gunshots without pauses.
After the gunshots, he made the U-turn and drove to the Ryanwood Plaza. He discovered
that his vehicle had been hit by gunfire as it had four bullet holes in it. There were three
bullet holes in the rear passenger side area and one bullet hole in the middle area of the
vehicle passenger side. Mr. Clemente-Botke was not aware that his car was struck until
he pulled into the parking lot of the plaza. Mr. Clemente-Botke was not involved in the
disturbance between the Mr. Hicks and the shooter. He did not see or hear any dispute
prior to the shooting. Mr. Clemente-Botke’s vehicle windows were up at the time of the
shooting. The radio in his vehicle was on. Mr. Clemente-Botke’s three year old son,
Sam, was in the back seat of the Acura at the time of the shooting. The crime scene
diagram shows that Mr. Clemente-Botke’s car was directly parallel to the driver’s side of
Mr. Hicks’s car. Neither Mr. Clemente-Botke nor his son was physically harmed during
the shooting. As Mr. Clemente-Botke had his windows up with the radio on, he did not
notice anything out of the ordinary until he heard the shots. His testimony does not
overcome Ms. Antler’s and Mr. Sartori’s account regarding Mr. Hick’s alleged threat and
movement in the seconds right before the shooting.

7
Ramon Hernandez was driving west on 20th Street. He stopped at the light located at 53rd
Avenue and 20th Street. Mr. Hernandez was in the left westbound lane on 20th Street. Mr.
Hernandez was on the opposite side of the intersection in the westbound lane with Mr.
Sartori’s and Mr. Hick’s vehicles to his left. No cars were in front of him as his car was
first at the light. His windows were half way down. He did not hear a confrontation. He
heard what he believed to be fireworks and looked to his left. He saw fire coming from a
car and realized a gun was being fired. Mr. Hernandez could not see the person firing the
gun. He saw Mr. Clemente-Botke’s SUV make a U-turn and drive west. He followed the
SUV and at the Ryanwood Plaza he asked Mr. Clemente-Botke what had happened. Mr.
Hernandez saw the bullet holes in Mr. Clemente-Botke’s vehicle. Mr. Hernandez’s
position was across the intersection in the opposite lane and he did not notice anything
unusual until he heard the gunshots. His testimony does not effectively counter Ms.
Antler’s and Mr. Sartori’s statements regarding Mr. Hick’s alleged threat and his
movement in the seconds right before the shooting.

Paul Stevenson and Ashley Wood were walking westbound towards 53rd Avenue on the
sidewalk adjacent to the southern side of 20th Street. Mr. Stevenson provided a written
statement to deputies on scene. As he approached 53rd avenue with Ms. Wood, Mr.
Stevenson stated he saw Mr. Hicks’s red car, eastbound on 20th Street, stopped at the
light at 53rd Avenue. He then saw a black car pull up on the driver’s side of the red car
and open fire on the red car. Apparently, Mr. Stevenson thought that Mr. Clemente-
Botke’s vehicle was the origin of the gunfire. Attempts to further interview Mr.
Stevenson and Ms. Wood were made. According to Mr. Stevenson’s employer, Mr.
Stevenson had left Florida. Detective Hau reported that Ms. Wood is homeless without a
known address. Follow-up interviews with Mr. Stevenson and Ms. Wood did not occur.

The Scene and the Vehicles:

When law enforcement arrived, Mr. Hicks’s car was facing east on 20th Street and Mr.
Sartori’s car was parked in the parking lot of the Jimmy Johns located at 5445 20th Street.
Deputy Skovsgard arrived to the shooting location and observed several eastbound cars
stopped at the intersection of 53rd Avenue and 20th Street. Bystanders directed Deputy
Skovsgard to Mr. Hicks’s eastbound Toyota Corolla on 20th Street. Deputy Skovsgard
first approached the Toyota and observed Mr. Hicks bleeding from the head, neck and
chest area. Mr. Hicks was sitting in the driver’s seat, leaning back into the rear passenger
side of the vehicle with his right arm extended behind the front passenger seat. The
position of Mr. Hick’s right arm could corroborate Mr. Sartori’s assertion that Mr. Hicks
was pulling up his arm, as if he had a firearm, in Mr. Sartori’s direction. Mr. Hicks was
later removed from the car by EMS personnel, to be better assessed, and placed on the
road by the driver’s side door. Mr. Hicks was deceased.

Deputy Skovsgard, as a first law enforcement officer to view Mr. Hicks, noted that the
car’s gearshift was in the park position. Detective Sunkel spoke with Indian River
County Fire Rescue Lt. Fox. Lt. Fox was the firefighter in charge at the shooting scene.
Lt. Fox said, when firefighters approached Hicks’s car, they noticed that the car was
already in park and that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt. The driver was already

8
deceased. Detective Sunkel followed-up with all known, relevant witnesses and learned
that none of the witnesses placed, or saw anyone else place, Mr. Hicks’s gearshift into
park. Thus, investigators concluded that Mr. Hicks placed his car in park prior to being
shot. Mr. Sartori said that Mr. Hick’s yelled at him to “get the fuck out” and Mr. Hick’s
touched his own door. Mr. Sartori said he then locked his car doors as he was concerned
that Mr. Hicks was about to physically attack him. The evidence, showing Mr. Hicks’s car
was in park and the lack of a seat belt on Mr. Hicks, tends to corroborate Mr. Sartori’s
claim that before the shooting Mr. Hick’s was acting as if he was going to get out of his
car and physically confront Mr. Sartori. The physical act of Mr. Hicks placing the car in
park, as the gearshift was located near the lower center console of the car, could
corroborate Mr. Sartori’s claim that Mr. Hicks was reaching for something just before he
raised his right arm towards Mr. Sartori.

Crime Scene Detective Rodriguez was assigned as the lead crime scene investigator. CSI
Rodriguez located a total of sixteen spent cartridge casings. Twelve spent cartridge
casings were on 20th Street. He later discovered four spent cartridge casings on the
outside windshield area of the silver Mazda 3 that Mr. Sartori was driving. The vehicles
driven by Mr. Hicks and Mr. Sartori were towed to the IRCSO compound for further
photography, examination and processing.

CSI Rodriguez processed Mr. Hicks’s Toyota Corolla. According to CSI Rodriguez, the
search did not reveal any firearms or weapons within Mr. Hicks’s Toyota. CSI Rodriguez
located a red lint brush in the rear driver side floorboard of the Mr. Hick’s car.

The Toyota Corolla was a four door car. CSI Rodriguez discovered seven bullet defects
on the Toyota. The shots were fired between a 65 and 90 degrees, horizontal angle, of

9
impact. Six bullet holes were located on the passenger right side of the vehicle and one
exit bullet hole on the driver side rear door. Most of the bullet holes were located near the
“B” pillar of the passenger side of the Toyota with the exception of two bullet holes
which were located in the rear passenger side door.

Two bullet projectiles were located on the floor board behind the driver’s seat. CSI
Rodriguez found the front driver window shattered and concluded that it was in the up
position at the time of impact. CSI Rodriguez found the front passenger side window in
the down position and inside the door. Likewise, Detective Rodriguez noted that the both
rear door windows were found shattered within the rear doors. As the glass shards were
within the doors, CSI Rodriquez concluded that both rear windows were in the down
position during the shooting incident. The open windows on the front and rear passenger
side of Mr. Hicks’s car confirmed Mr. Sartori’s account that Mr. Hick’s lowered his
windows down during the verbal confrontation. Based on the crime scene investigation,
a diagram was produced to depict the positon of the vehicles at the time of the shooting.

10
Besides the firearm, nothing of evidentiary value was located inside the Mazda 3 that Mr.
Sartori was driving. Crime Scene Detective Rodriguez collected the Glock 9mm semi-
automatic pistol. The slide on the firearm was locked to the rear and an empty fifteen
(15) round magazine was still in the firearm.

Review of Video and the Death Notification:

On November 17th, 2017, Detective Sunkel responded to GameStop located at 6310 20th
Street after receiving information that Mr. Hicks was there prior to the shooting.
Detective Sunkel met with the assistant manager, Brittany Sodemann, and requested the
surveillance video from within the store. Ms. Sodemann told Detective Sunkel that Mr.
Hicks was a regular customer at GameStop. She described him as an odd person, who
was very talkative. On the day of his death, November 16th, 2017, Mr. Hicks went to
GameStop at 6:45 pm, bought an item and left the store at 6:48 pm hours. Ms. Sodemann
further stated that while Mr. Hicks was inside the store there were some shelving hooks
on the floor. Mr. Hicks made the comment, “You should pick these up before I break my
ankle”. Ms. Sodemann said nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary with Mr. Hicks’s
behavior.

On November 17th, 2017, Detective Sunkel responded to Target located at 5800 20th
Street after learning that Mr. Hicks was there prior to the shooting. Detective Sunkel met
with a loss prevention officer who was able to show Detective Sunkel the surveillance
video from the moment that Mr. Hicks parked his car and walked into the store. Detective
Sunkel was able to see Mr. Hicks walk into the store, go to the medicine aisle, buy
Sudafed and leave the store. Mr. Hicks left the eastern side of the Target parking lot. Mr.
Hicks’s car could be seen turning South onto 58th Avenue out of the parking lot. Mr.
Hicks did not have any issue with oncoming traffic as he turned south onto 58th Avenue.
Video surveillance from Lowe’s, Walmart, Wells Fargo Bank and Domino’s Pizza was
collected by detectives and reviewed but nothing of evidentiary value was obtained.

Vera Thomson, the mother of Dennis Hicks, arrived at the IRSO lobby and reported that
her son had not returned home. She was informed of her son’s death and returned to her
residence. Sergeant Mewborn and a victim’s advocate then arrived at her residence. At
the residence, Sergeant Mewborn heard Michael Nosler, the brother of Dennis Hicks,
state “Mom, you know how Dennis is, he has a hot head and probably said something he
shouldn’t have said”. Deputy Thomas, who was on scene during the death notification,
noted that Michael Nosler described his brother, Dennis Hicks, as having a “macho man”
attitude. In a subsequent interview with Detective Hau, Michael Nosler denied making
the statements documented in the reports by Sergeant Mewborn and Deputy Thomas.

Mr. Hicks’s Wounds:

On November 17th, 2017, Mr. Hicks’s autopsy was performed at the Medical Examiner’s
Office. The autopsy revealed that Mr. Hicks sustained four gunshot entrance wounds.
The wound labeled as “A” showed an entrance wound to the upper right chest near the
arm pit. The wound track was from right to left with a minimal downward path. The

11
wound labeled as “B” showed an entrance wound to the right upper back shoulder area.
The wound track was from right to left in a downward angled path. The wound labeled
as “C” showed an entrance wound to the left bicep that exited by the left armpit. The
wound track was from right to left in a downward angled path. The wound labeled as
“D” showed an entrance wound to the back right side of the head. The wound track was
from right to left in a downward angled path. The wound labeled as “A” shows a straight
bullet trajectory track and is more consistent with an individual seated upright. Wound
“A” would likely be first wound suffered by Mr. Hicks. With the downward trajectories,
the wounds, labeled B, C, and D, could be consistent with the body being slumped.
Wounds B and C are aligned and appear to be a single bullet track.

Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Mittleman confirmed that the cause of death was multiple
gunshot wounds. Toxicology tests were conducted on the blood of Mr. Hicks recovered at
the autopsy. The toxicology results showed the presence of the controlled substances of
methadone and cyclopenzaprine. I requested Detective Hau to determine if Mr. Hicks
had a valid prescription for the substances. Detective Hau left messages with Mr. Hick’s
family that he needed further information from them. No one returned Detective Hau’s
calls.

12
I consulted with CSI Rodriquez, the lead crime scene investigator, regarding his findings.
Specifically, I sought his expertise regarding the position of Mr. Hicks at the time of the
infliction of his wounds. Based on his training, experience and his examination of the
evidence, CSI Rodriquez concluded that Mr. Hicks would have been turned towards Mr.
Sartori at the time of the wound by the right arm pit area labeled as “A” in the above
diagram. Mr. Hicks would have to be turned towards Mr. Sartori as the cars were not
directly parallel but rather positioned with Mr. Hicks’s car closer to the stop line and the
trajectory of gunshot wound “A” was right to left with a minimal downward track. CSI
Rodriquez discussed, with the deputy who first encountered Mr. Hicks, the exact position
of Mr. Hicks’s body and the position of Mr. Hick’s arm within the car. The right arm of
the deceased Mr. Hicks was extended behind the front passenger seat when the deputy
first saw him. Considering that gunshot wound “A” did not enter the right arm before
entering the chest and the extension of the right arm behind the passenger seat, I asked
CSI Rodriquez if he had an opinion on the position of the right arm at the time that
gunshot wound “A” occurred. Based upon the autopsy results and his investigation, CSI
Rodriquez concluded that the right arm of Mr. Hicks was in a raised position at the time
of the shooting.

Backgrounds:

Dennis Hicks was 38 years old. Mr. Hicks was 5’11” tall and weighed 230 pounds. Mr.
Hicks was “disabled” according to his prior arrest affidavits. At the time of the shooting,
Mr. Hicks’s driver’s license was suspended. Mr. Sartori was 29 years old. Mr. Sartori
was 6’ tall and weighed 200 pounds. Mr. Sartori had a valid permit to carry a concealed
firearm in Florida. Mr. Sartori is currently employed as a sky dive instructor at the
airport in Sebastian. Mr. Sartori was in the National Guard for six years and was
deployed in Iraq for a year as security for convoys.

Former Duty to Retreat Before the Justifiable Use of Deadly Force:

Historically in Florida, the “castle doctrine”, from the common law, has applied. The
“castle doctrine” allowed one to justifiably use deadly force in one’s dwelling against an
intruder without the necessity of retreat. Generally, with confrontations in public areas,
one had the duty to retreat before using deadly force. The “one interposing the defense ...
must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to
avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life.” Linsley v. State, 88 Fla.
135, 101 So. 273 (1924). “[A] person under attack [has] to ‘retreat to the wall or ditch’
before taking a life.” Cannon v. State, 464 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The
“castle doctrine” of non-retreat was not extended to automobiles. In Baker v. State, 506
So. 2d 1056, (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) the defendant, who stabbed two men while hunched
down in the opening of his car door, argued that he had the right to use deadly force and
had no obligation to retreat if he was attacked in his own automobile. The Baker Court
disagreed and found that an automobile’s mobility is inherently useful under certain
circumstances for a retreat before a deadly self-defense confrontation. Id. at 1059. The
Baker Court held that to carve out an automobile non-retreat exception would seem to
virtually eliminate the retreat obligation. Arguably, in the past, the Baker case could assist

13
in the prosecution of Mr. Sartori as he did not attempt to retreat before the use of deadly
force. However, the law of Baker was eliminated by the Florida Legislature with the
passage of Florida Statue 776.032, commonly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law.
Florida Statue 776.032 eliminated the duty to retreat before the justifiable use of deadly
force.

Examination of the Applicable Law Regarding Sartori’s Use of Deadly Force

Florida Statue 776.032 provides that, in certain circumstances, a person may use deadly
force to stand his ground against an attacker and be free from the fear of prosecution.
Florida Statue 776.032 grants defendants a substantive right to assert immunity from
prosecution and to avoid being subjected to a trial. Florida Statue 776.032 mandates:

(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s.

776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal
prosecution… the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in
custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant; and,
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may
not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that
there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.

Furthermore, Florida Statue 776.032 places the burden on the Sate to show otherwise:

(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity

from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity
hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party
seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in
subsection (1).

Parenthetically, it should be noted that even when the State successfully counters a
defendant’s immunity claim, this would then require the prosecution to overcome the
defendant’s self-defense claim, at trial, with evidence sufficient to meet the standard of
proof beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The Court would consider the
nature and quality of the State’s evidence at the conclusion of the State’s presentation of
evidence and again at the conclusion of all evidence in the case. The State’s failure to
meet its burden of proof would be met with the Court’s dismissal of the case by a motion
for judgment of acquittal.

Initially, an examination of the law relating to self-defense in sections 776.012 and

776.013 is necessary. The self-defense statutory provisions of sections 776.012 and
776.013(3) are contained within section 3.6(f) of the Standard Jury Instructions regarding
the justifiable use of deadly force. The provisions would guide the Court considering the
self-defense claim. The following portions of 3.6(f) would be applicable in a claim by
Mr. Sartori:

14
 It is a defense to the crime of manslaughter if the actions of the defendant
constituted the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

The use of deadly force is justifiable if the defendant reasonably believed that the
force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself
while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder him, or

2. any attempt to commit aggravated assault upon him,

Defendant was justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed that such
force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or
another or the imminent commission of aggravated assault upon himself or
another. If defendant was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity and was in a
place he had a right to be, then he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand
his ground.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must
consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly
force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious
and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon
appearances, defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
However, the defendant had no duty to retreat if he was not otherwise engaged in
criminal activity and was in a place where he had a right to be.

If you find that the decedent had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous
person, you may consider this fact in determining whether he was the initial
aggressor

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative
physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and the decedent.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt

on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force,
you should find the defendant not guilty.

The defense for Sartori would attempt to establish that Mr. Hicks had a reputation for
violence to establish that Mr. Hicks was the initial aggressor. Under this provision, Mr.
Sartori does not have to establish that he knew of Mr. Hicks’s reputation. Merely, the
character evidence is available to Mr. Sartori to show that Mr. Hicks acted in conformity

15
with his character. Mr. Hick’s prior arrest history would assist in the defense’s endeavor.
In 2002, Mr. Hicks was arrested in Indian River County for aggravated battery.
According to Hicks’s own statement, someone, outside of Mr. Hicks’s car, brandished a
knife at him, Mr. Hicks then drove in his car, out of range of the person with the knife,
and then Mr. Hicks drove his car, angrily and intentionally, into the person, causing
injury. The case was not prosecuted as both Mr. Hicks and the other party were arrested.
In 2006, Mr. Hicks was arrested in St. Lucie County for battery. The victim, a female
restaurant waitress, reported that Mr. Hicks was upset about the service. Mr. Hicks asked
the victim to come outside so he could “kick her ass”. A manager asked Mr. Hicks to
leave. Mr. Hicks left then returned and jabbed the server in the nose. Mr. Hicks entered a
no contest plea to the charge. In 2012, Mr. Hicks was arrested in Indian River County for
battery for striking a female in the face after a dispute over $10.00. Mr. Hicks entered a
no contest plea to the charge. In 2012, Mr. Hicks was arrested in Indian River County for
criminal mischief for damaging a car. During a dispute, Mr. Hicks, with an aluminum
baseball bat, struck a car on the hood and on a side mirror. Mr. Hicks then shattered the
passenger side window with the baseball bat. The damage was documented by the
investigating officer. Mr. Hicks entered a no contest plea to the criminal mischief charge.
Furthermore, deputies reported that when first learning of Mr. Hick’s death, the brother of
Mr. Hick’s said “Mom, you know how Dennis is, he has a hot head and probably said
something he shouldn’t have said”. Mr. Sartori’s defense would have material to
establish that Mr. Hicks had a reputation for violence to show that Mr. Hicks was the
initial aggressor. The endeavor would effectively bolster Mr. Sartori’s self-defense claim.
As Mr. Sartori would likely testify at the motion to dismiss, his credibility would be at
issue. His criminal history reflects a conviction for trespassing. He was arrested in 2008
for burglary of an unoccupied business but entered a plea to misdemeanor trespassing.
Therefore, Mr. Sartori does not have any prior convictions that could be used to impeach
his credibility.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Self-Defense:

As noted before, Mr. Sartori was in the National Guard for six years and was deployed in
Iraq for a year as security for convoys. At the time of his interview at the IRSO, Mr.
Sartori had a Veterans Administration (VA) identification card in his wallet. Investigators
asked Mr. Sartori about his military service and whether he seen combat. Mr. Sartori was
asked if he had firearms training. Mr. Sartori stated that he was trained to fire a machine
gun. In Iraq, he was to protect convoys. Mr. Sartori was asked why he went to the VA
hospital and Mr. Sartori stated that he was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Mr. Sartori said he was not taking medication for the condition.

DETECTIVE: When, when you were deployed, did you ever face combat? Active
combat shooter, anything like that?
SARTORI: IADs.
DETECTIVE: IADs?
SARTORI: Yeah. I was like machine gunner, I was a gunner.
DETECTIVE: You had IDs explode near you or
SARTORI: Yes.

16
 DETECTIVE: when, on your convoy itself?
SARTORI: Yes.
DETECTIVE: Anybody shooting at you guys for the, when you were in the
convoy travels?
SARTORI: (uintelligible) ID, but yeah.
DETECTIVE: Okay. You had been shot at just nothing you can pinpoint.
SARTORI: No.

In her interview, Melissa Antler also said Mr. Sartori was diagnosed by a VA facility as
having post-traumatic stress disorder. In an interview with me, Detective Hau, and ASA
Taylor, Ms. Antler further described Mr. Sartori’s condition. Ms. Antler reported that Mr.
Sartori and she started to date after he returned from his military service in Iraq. At that
time, Mr. Sartori was still in the National Guard. According to Ms. Antler, Mr. Sartori
did not like to speak of his overseas deployment and kept his experiences to himself.
After years, she said that she learned that Mr. Sartori was diagnosed as having PTSD by
the VA facility in Viera. Ms. Antler described Mr. Sartori as having trouble sleeping,
being overly anxious and being hyper-vigilant. According to Ms. Antler, Mr. Sartori
would sometimes have counseling for PTSD one to two times a month at the VA facility
in Viera. According to Ms. Antler, Mr. Sartori is not medicated for the condition. Mr.
Ecker II, the attorney for Mr. Sartori, has provided documentation from the VA that
confirms that Mr. Sartori has been diagnosed with the condition of PTSD. Mr. Ecker II
also provided records documenting numerous appointments that Mr. Sartori had with the
VA in Viera.

In the context of a self-defense claim, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is relevant in

the examination of the reasonableness of one’s fear. In State v. Mizell, 773 So. 2d 618,
620–21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a Viet Nam war veteran, who was diagnosed with PTSD by
the Veteran’s Administration, was charged for severely beating another, unconscious, with
a stick. The defense sought to use PTSD to explain the veteran’s perceptions in the
setting of a self-defense claim. The court viewed the PTSD evidence as state-of-mind
evidence, similar to battered spouse syndrome (BSS) testimony that is admissible in self-
defense claims. The court held that PTSD evidence was relevant on the question of self-
defense as a defendant's perceptions are relevant when assessing the applicability of self-
defense. Id. See also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 45, 48 (“Based upon appearances, the
defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.”). Mr. Sartori’s PTSD
diagnosis and his combat service would be used to explain his perceptions and the
reasonableness of his fear in the seconds immediately prior to the shooting of Mr. Hicks.

Ultimately, the issue is whether Sartori’s testimony regarding self-defense, the testimony
of Ms. Antler, and the physical evidence can be rebutted. At a pre-trial motion to dismiss,
the State must disprove, with clear and convincing evidence, the claim of self-defense.

Successful Denials of Immunity Claims Pursuant to 776.032

As reflected below, there are methods to successfully counter a claim for immunity
pursuant to section 776.032.

17
A murder defendant was not entitled to immunity from prosecution as she related several
inconsistent versions of events and her testimony was not consistent with the medical
evidence.  Leasure v. State, 105 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012)

A defendant shot into another car at a stop light and filed a motion to dismiss. The
motion was properly denied as witnesses, who testified at the hearing, and other evidence
at the hearing created a conflict as to how the events, leading up to the shooting,
occurred.  Tover v. State, 106 So.3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)

Evidence was sufficient to justify a trial court's refusal to confer Stand Your Ground
immunity on a defendant who stabbed a victim to death. The defendant’s credibility, as
the only surviving witness to the stabbing, was a critical issue. The defendant’s
credibility was undermined by the fact that he gave numerous inconsistent statements
regarding the stabbing and he admitted that he lied to law enforcement.  Early v. State,
223 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

A defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss attempted murder charges on grounds of

immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law was properly denied, where the facts
regarding defendant's entitlement to immunity were in dispute.  Velasquez v. State, 9
So.3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

In a murder prosecution, a defendant stabbed the victim several times “in self-defense”
and after the stabbing he did not call for help. The defendant then went into a kitchen,
cleaned his own wounds, and had a glass of water. The defendant dragged the victim's
body into the house from a courtyard, hosed down the blood on the courtyard, and wiped
the blood off the knife. The defendant also took clothing, money and credit cards from
the victim. The court held that the defendant's actions did not reflect someone who had
simply been trying to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury and the motion
to dismiss was denied.  Arauz v. State, 171 So.3d 160 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015)

The cases, where the immunity claim was successfully defeated, show evidence that is
inconsistent with the claims of the defendant, inconsistencies within the claims of the
defendant, conflicts in the evidence, and the flight of the defendant from the scene. In
essence, the actions, of the defendants in the cases cited above, reveal a consciousness of
guilt. The key is mustering evidence to contradict the claims of the defendant or relying
on a defendant’s own inconsistent statements. The standard jury instructions found at
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.9 are helpful as a guide in the evaluation of one’s
credibility.

1. Does the witness’s testimony agree with the other testimony and other
evidence in the case?

2. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent
with the testimony he or she gave in court?

18
Critical Factors:

Mr. Sartori claims that he drew his weapon and fired in self-defense. There is no
evidence to show that there was a prior dispute between Mr. Sartori and Mr. Hicks or
even that the two had ever met prior to the shooting. Ms. Antler also said she did not
know Mr. Hicks. Mr. Sartori said that initially Mr. Hicks was challenging him to get out
of the car as if to fight. The evidence shows that the gearshift of Mr. Hicks’s car was in
park, at a red light, and the most logical explanation is that Mr. Hicks put the car in park
before the shooting as the car did not continue to move in the moments after the shooting.
Drivers do not typically put cars in the park position at stop lights. Arguably, it confirms
Mr. Sartori’s claim that Mr. Hicks was confronting him and that Mr. Hicks was
considering getting out of his car at the stop light to engage Mr. Sartori. CSI Rodriquez
reported that both windows on the passenger side of Mr. Hicks’s car were in the down
position. Mr. Sartori claimed that Mr. Hicks yelled that he would put a bullet in his head,
reached for something and brought his arm up as if to fire a weapon at him. Mr. Sartori
was asked if Mr. Hicks had threatened Ms. Antler. Mr. Sartori said the threat was
directed at him but he feared also for his girlfriend’s safety.
SARTORI: Just me, threatening me.
DETECTIVE: Okay.
SARTORI: Which was fine, like, I am not going to get out of the car, and I am
not like, yeah, I just, but the second he said, I am going to put a bullet in your ass,
and he reached down, like my, my main thought was like he is going to open fire
on us and he is going to kill my fucking girlfriend. Cause I saw him reaching and
I am like, he is getting a gun. And that thought came to my mind, and really
gripped my gun up like that, and then, I saw him raise up, back up to me, and I
just opened fire

Law enforcement, upon first viewing the deceased Mr. Hicks within in car, noted that Mr.
Hicks’s right arm was extended behind the front passenger seat. Thus, the right arm of
Mr. Hicks was extended towards Mr. Sartori’s location. The position of the right arm of
Mr. Hicks confirmed Mr. Sartori’s claim that Mr. Hicks was bringing up his arm as if he
was pointing a firearm at him. Additionally, a bullet entrance wound is found in the right
side of the chest near the right arm pit area of Mr. Hicks. The bullet track was from right
to left on the right side of Mr. Hicks’s body. As Mr. Sartori’s car was slightly behind and
not directly parallel to Mr. Hicks’s car, the bullet track shows that Mr. Hicks had to have
been turned towards Mr. Sartori at the time of the wound for the wound track to be as it
was documented. As the cars were not parallel, Mr. Hicks would be turning with his
right shoulder aligned with the rear passenger door rather than the front passenger door.
Notably, the bullet did not penetrate the upper right arm. As the right arm of Mr. Hicks
was extended behind the front passenger seat towards Mr. Hicks’s vehicle, the defense
would argue that the location of the wound, near the arm pit, indicates that the right arm
was raised at the time of the shooting. The physical evidence tends to corroborate the
most critical statements of Mr. Sartori. With the gathered evidence, the State is unable to
rebut the claim of Mr. Sartori that Mr. Hicks was turned towards him and raising his right
arm. In fact, the findings and opinion of CSI Rodriquez actually confirm Mr. Sartori’s
assertions.

19
Mr. Sartori and Ms. Antler did not flee. Mr. Sartori immediately pulled over in the
parking lot adjacent to the crime scene. Both Mr. Sartori and Ms. Antler, immediately
and repeatedly, called 911 to report the shooting to authorities. On the night of the
shooting, Mr. Sartori and Ms. Antler were cooperative and voluntarily gave statements to
investigators. Based on demeanor, appearance and cognitive reactions, investigators had
no suspicion that either Mr. Sartori or Ms. Antler was under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. Unlike the actions of the defendants in the cited cases, like in the Arauz case,
where the immunity claim was successfully countered by the State, the actions of Mr.
Sartori after the shooting show a lack of consciousness of guilt.

Even though Ms. Antler is the girlfriend of Mr. Sartori, she is another witness to the
incident. Obviously, the State would highlight the relationship between Mr. Sartori and
Ms. Antler in an effort to call into question her credibility. However, the Court would
have testimony to support an immunity claim that was not derived solely from a potential
defendant. Ultimately, Ms. Antler corroborates Mr. Sartori’s account of the moments
immediately prior to the shooting. Over a period of time, detectives of the Indian River
County Sheriff’s Office worked steadily and diligently to uncover evidence that refuted
Mr. Sartori’s and Ms. Antler’s account of the shooting. All relevant and available video
was reviewed. Witnesses were interviewed. The crime scene unit of the Indian River
County Sheriff’s Office examined the crime scene, the cars, and all available evidence.
Yet, evidence to refute the claims of Mr. Sartori is not forthcoming.

Potential witnesses were interviewed and requests were made for any unknown party
with information to come forward. Indeed, both myself and the head of the Indian River
County State Attorney’s Office, Chris Taylor, did numerous follow up interviews with
Annemarie Yanko, Henry Swihart, Deborah Krauss, Robert Krauss, Bobby Fletcher,
Natalie Holtom, Ramon Hernandez, and Michael Clemente-Botke. Detective Hau of the
Indian River County Sheriff’s Office was present for the continuing interviews. The
witnesses were cooperative and giving of their time with the continued investigation.
The summaries of those interviews begin on page five of this memorandum. The
witnesses were all in cars at the time of the shooting. Obviously the cars were in
different positions on 20th Street. Most of the witnesses had their car windows closed.
Just before the shooting, some witnesses had the car radio on, some were talking to their
passengers and one was talking on a cell phone. None of the witnesses noticed anything
unusual until the sound of the gunshots. The witnesses do not assist in refuting Mr.
Sartori’s claim as to what occurred in the seconds immediately before the shooting.
Considering the clear and convincing standard at the pre-trial motion to dismiss, the
witness testimony would not overcome Mr. Sartori’s immunity claim. Likewise, at trial
with the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the testimony of the
witnesses would be insufficient to defeat the self-defense claim of Mr. Sartori.

As with every criminal prosecution, each case must rise and fall based upon the
uncovered evidence and the applicable laws. In this matter, there are no witnesses or
physical evidence that sufficiently counter Mr. Sartori’s defense claims by clear and
convincing evidence, much less the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

20
Unlike cases cited previously where the immunity claim was defeated by the State,
evidence to counteract Mr. Sartori’s self-defense claim is lacking. Mr. Sartori remained
on scene and called the police. Mr. Sartori’s statements to law enforcement did not
contain material inconsistencies which could be utilized to call into question the veracity
of his claims, and his statements are largely corroborated by the only other eyewitness to
the entirety of these events. In light of the foregoing, were this case to be presented to the
trial court on a theory of manslaughter, the Court, under the State’s “Stand Your Ground
Law,” would be compelled to dismiss the charge against the defendant. In fact, Florida
law prohibits the State from filing charges in this matter. As stated in Florida Statute
776.032, a person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s.
776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal
prosecution… the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody,
and charging or prosecuting the defendant. If Mr. Sartori was not otherwise engaged in
criminal activity and was in a place he had a right to be, then he had no duty to retreat
and had the right to stand his ground. In good faith and as a minister of justice, a
prosecutor is prevented from simply approving a warrant for an arrest, casually charging
a defendant and letting the Court decide the self-defense issue at a later date. Passing the
difficult issue to a judge is unethical if the prosecutor believes that the immunity
conferred by Florida Statute 776.032 erodes probable cause. The professional rules
regulating a prosecutor are clear and mandate that a prosecutor in a criminal case shall
refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable
cause. Florida Bar Rule 4-3.8. There is simply insufficient evidence to overcome the
claim of self-defense and to prove that Mr. Sartori used unlawful force. Pursuant to
Section 776.032, an arrest should not be made as Mr. Sartori is “immune” from criminal
prosecution.

Regardless of the immunity provisions of Section 776.032, the aforementioned

evidentiary problems make a criminal prosecution for the offense of manslaughter
impossible. Even if the case miraculously survived a claim of immunity pursuant to
Florida Statue 776.032, at trial, the State would have to contend with the much higher
burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome a motion for a judgment of
acquittal. In E.A.B. v. State, 933 So.2d 574, 678 (Fla. 2006), the Florida Supreme Court
cited, with approval, the following quote from Brown v. State, 454 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla.
5th DCA 1984):
While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-
defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from
the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove
that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. [W]hen
the State’s evidence is legally insufficient to rebut the defendant’s testimony
establishing self-defense, the court must grant a motion for judgment of acquittal.

In the shooting of Mr. Hicks, unfortunately, the uncovered evidence is insufficient to

rebut the testimony of Mr. Sartori and Ms. Antler; therefore, at trial, the inevitable motion
for judgment of acquittal would be granted. Setting aside the probable cause issue, even
if an arrest of Mr. Sartori had been made, I could not file an information formally
charging Mr. Sartori with manslaughter as I do not have a good faith basis to believe that

21
a criminal conviction would be forthcoming as the case would be dismissed by pre-trial
motion or during trial at the judgment of acquittal stage.

Examination of the Applicable Law Regarding Bystanders

The warrant affidavit is for the crime of manslaughter of Mr. Hicks. Nevertheless, as a
bystander’s vehicle was struck by gunfire, I have also considered other potential crimes,
such as culpable negligence or discharging a firearm in public. Sartori fired a total of
sixteen rounds towards Mr. Hicks’s car. Four of Mr. Sartori’s rounds struck a black SUV
occupied by Michael Clemente-Botke and his three-year-old son. By the grace of God,
no one in the Clemente-Botke vehicle was physically injured. Mr. Clemente-Botke’s
vehicle is depicted in black in the following diagram.

The crime scene diagram shows that Mr. Clemente-Botke’s vehicle was directly parallel
to the driver’s side of Mr. Hicks’s car. As only one exit bullet hole was located on Mr.
Hicks’s rear driver side door, the bullets that struck Mr. Clemente-Botke’s car likely
traveled through Mr. Hick’s open window frames of the rear doors.

In the jury instructions, the crime of Discharging a Firearm in Public addresses an

affirmative defense and mandates: “it is a defense to the crime of Discharging a Firearm

22
in Public if the defendant was lawfully defending life or property”. If Mr. Sartori has an
unrebuttable claim of self-defense would he be criminally liable for an errant bullet that
struck the Clemente-Botke vehicle? For over 100 years, Florida has shielded those who
validly used self-defense and inadvertently killed a non-participant. If the killing of a
party intended to be killed would, under all circumstances, have been a justifiable
homicide upon the theory of self-defense, then the unintended killing of a bystander, by a
random shot fired in the proper and prudent exercise of such self-defense is also
justifiable.  Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837, 26 Am.St.Rep. 75 (1891). Indeed,
Florida recognizes a theory of transferred self-defense in cases where a shooter, in self-
defense, kills an uninvolved bystander. In fact, our appellate authority, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal, discussed this very concept in Nelson. v. State, 853 So.2d 563,
565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) and held:

Under the facts of this case, appellant should have been entitled to transfer his
theory of self-defense to defend against the transferred intent crime. In Brown v.
State, 84 Fla. 660, 94 So. 874, 874 (1922), the Florida Supreme Court held that
“[i]f the killing of the party intended to be killed would, under all the
circumstances, have been excusable or justifiable homicide upon the theory of
self-defense, then the unintended killing of a bystander, by a random shot fired in
the proper and prudent exercise of such self-defense, is also excusable or
justifiable.” See also Foreman v. State, 47 So.2d 308 (Fla.1950); 15B Fla. Jur 2d
Criminal Law § 3431 (“if the slaying of an attacker would in the circumstances be
self-defense, the person attacked will be free from liability if, in attempting to
defend himself, he unintentionally kills a third person.”); V.M. v. State, 766 So.2d
280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (where self-defense is a viable defense to the charge of
battery on an intended victim, the defense also operates to excuse the battery on
the unintended victim).

If the concept of transferred self-defense applies to the killing of an innocent bystander;

likewise, the concept would apply to the unintentional striking of another vehicle with a
bullet where no one was physically injured. Under the law, Mr. Sartori’s claim of self-
defense, that cannot be rebutted, travels with his bullets. Mr. Sartori was asked by the
detective if he was aware of other cars in the vicinity. Mr. Sartori claimed that he tried to
avoid other vehicles and he specifically recalled Mr. Clemente-Botke’s SUV.

SARTORI: I was aiming down. Cause I believe there is a, a car behind his, there
was an SUV, and like I remember the first shot, I wanted to like, not, I realized if I
shot downwards, like towards center mass hit him, it wouldn’t
DETECTIVE: So, you were conscious of the people behind you, like you knew
there was other
SARTORI: Yes, I was.
DETECTIVE: people? Okay.
SARTORI: And I aimed downwards and started firing, and then, he kinda like,
went like that, and it looked like he was still rustling and at that point, is when I
put my other hand on my hand like as I am shooting, I put my other hand on the

23
 handle, on the grip and I like take aim, and like take the think two well place
shots. It, like it was like that.

Mr. Sartori was also asked why he fired so many rounds.

SARTORI: I have no idea. I didn’t know if I was hitting him at all because he was
still like
DETECTIVE: Moving around?
SARTORI: moving around. And that’s why like the last two or three shots, I really
like, aimed down on him, cause I wanted to hit him. Cause I didn’t know if he
was still going to get a gun and I was running out of bullets. I didn’t have another
magazine. And like I just wanted to make sure he wasn’t moving any more to like,
could shoot us when we try to walk, get away, drive away and as soon as like, a
lot was going through my mind when, I was just pulling the trigger I guess.

DETECTIVE: What was going through your mind?

SARTORI: Like the first thing was there is a car behind him, aim low, like, I
wasn’t really aiming, but like pointing the gun,

According to Mr. Sartori, he wasn’t firing blindly. The firing of a single shot or multiple
shots in a matter of mere seconds does not change the analysis. Mr. Sartori said he kept
firing until he eliminated the perceived threat.

Conclusion

Tragically, Mr. Hick’s life was ended on the night of this shooting. Amazingly, others
escaped physical harm during the shooting by Mr. Sartori. However, the viable
prosecution of Mr. Sartori fails at three separate and distinct legal junctures. First,
Florida Statute 776.032(1) mandates that Mr. Sartori not be arrested or otherwise charged
as the existing evidence does not support a probable cause finding for the offense of
manslaughter. Second, even if the State were to ignore the plain language (and hence the
law) of Section 776.032(1), and authorize the arrest Mr. Sartori for manslaughter, the trial
court would be legally compelled to dismiss that charge pursuant to Section 776.032(4).
Finally, if by some miracle Mr. Sartori’s prosecution survived a statutory immunity
hearing, the State’s ill-conceived prosecution would most assuredly fail when confronted
with the defendant’s motion for judgement of acquittal at trial. It is this writer’s firmly
held belief that Mr. Sartori, without fear of increasing the danger to himself or Ms. Antler,
could have avoided this tragic encounter had he made an effort to retreat with his vehicle.
However, as is now patently evident, in Florida, the present state of self-defense law does
not require him to do so. It is not for this prosecutor to debate the policy, but to enforce
the laws as written by the legislative branch of Florida. It is through the prism of these
laws which the State must view the evidence in this case, and as such must decline
prosecution in this matter.

24