3.190 (c) is the equivalent of a summary judgement motion -- the critical language is:
There are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.
(Obviously the other sections, dealing with double jeopardy, immunity, or pardon do not apply)
In this case, there clearly are material disputed facts, so I cannot see any possibility of such a motion being granted.
The strength of the evidence would not come into play on such a motion -- only the issue of whether or not the facts are in dispute.
Whenever intent is an element of a criminal offense, that is almost always proven via an inference to be drawn from the evidence (that is, by circumstantial evidence) as there can never be direct evidence as to what a person is thinking. No one can read minds. In some cases there might be evidence in the form of a statement or admission -- but most of the time it is a matter of an inference drawn from the overall circumstances. The prosecution makes an argument based on surrounding circumstances.
For example, you might have a case where person A shoots their spouse B. A says it was an accident; the gun went off while being cleaned. But the prosecution has evidence that A was having an affair and bought a large life insurance policy on B a month before the shooting. So the prosecutor uses that evidence (affair, life insurance policy) to establish that A had a pre-existing motive to kill B, and uses that motive to argue that the killing was murder.
In this case, the undisputed
facts include: While observing Martin, GZ stated "those a$$holes always get away". When seeing Martin run, GZ uttered the words: "f***ing punk". GZ got out of his truck and walked or ran after Martin. (heard and admitted on tape). GZ was carrying a loaded gun when he got out of his truck.
The other matters are facts that are in dispute
. Witnesses can establish that there was a physical struggle and some shouting or screaming, but the issue of who started the fight, how it ended, and who was doing the screaming remains in dispute. GZ has physical injuries that can be documented, but the cause and extent of those injuries remains in dispute. GZ has made statements, but the veracity of those statement remain in dispute.
In a civil summary judgment motion, the procedure is to list out all the undisputed facts -- and then submit the motion to the judge. I don't see how the undisputed facts in this case would lead to a dismissal -- you are still left with a homicide and no *undisputed* facts establishing that the homicide was justifiable.
Of course, the fact that the facts are disputed
also means that GZ may very well win at trial -- but a motion under 3.190 does not go to weight of evidence.
I'd be very interested in seeing any case law in Florida showing a 3.190 motion being granted in a homicide case where the issue was the intent of the perpetrator.