An April appeals court decision reversed the suppression of some statements Raymond Reese made to detectives after the 2021 shooting.
CORAL SPRINGS, Fla. — Raymond Reese’s attempt to have a first-degree murder charge dismissed on self-defense grounds comes months after a Florida appeals court revived statements he made during a police interrogation, adding another layer to a case that has moved through years of pretrial litigation.
Reese, 56, is charged with first-degree murder with a firearm in the Dec. 23, 2021, killing of real estate agent Sara Trost. He testified this week that Trost pointed a gun at him before he opened fire, an account prosecutors dispute. The self-defense hearing now asks a judge to decide whether Reese can avoid prosecution based on his claim that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary. That issue is separate from an earlier legal dispute over which of Reese’s statements to police may be used in the case.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed that earlier dispute in an April 8 decision. The state had appealed after a Broward County circuit judge suppressed part of Reese’s custodial interview. The appellate court reversed that portion of the ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings, concluding that an earlier statement by Reese about needing advice was not a clear request for an attorney that required detectives to end questioning.
According to the appellate decision, police advised Reese of his Miranda rights after his arrest and he agreed to speak with detectives. While sitting in the back of a patrol vehicle, Reese answered questions and provided the location of firearms. He was later taken to a police station for a recorded interview. The appeals court said Reese acknowledged calling 911 and acknowledged shooting someone in Coral Springs while saying he did not know the victim’s identity.
During the station interview, Reese made references to needing advice. A trial judge concluded that one of those comments amounted to an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel and suppressed statements made after that point. The Fourth District disagreed. It ruled that the reference to needing advice did not clearly ask for an attorney and could have been understood in more than one way. The court noted that Reese later specifically said he wanted to speak with a lawyer, at which point detectives stopped questioning him.
The appellate decision did not resolve the murder charge, determine Reese’s credibility or decide whether he acted in self-defense. It dealt with the narrower constitutional question of when Reese clearly invoked his right to counsel during interrogation. By reversing the partial suppression order, the appeals court allowed the prosecution to proceed without the earlier restriction on statements made after Reese’s ambiguous reference to advice and before his later explicit request for a lawyer.
Those post-shooting statements are now part of the broader background as prosecutors challenge Reese’s account of the fatal encounter. Reese called 911 after Trost was shot and reported that he had shot someone. Prosecutors have emphasized that his initial account did not include a claim that Trost had pointed a gun at him or that he had fired because he feared being shot. They argue that omission conflicts with the self-defense explanation Reese gave in court nearly five years later.
Reese’s attorneys are asking the judge to focus on what he says happened during the encounter itself. Reese testified that he went to the Coral Springs property intending to address a dispute with his former landlord. He mistakenly believed Trost was that landlord, according to the defense and authorities. Reese now says Trost displayed a firearm, prompting him to shoot because he believed his life was in danger.
Prosecutors dispute that central detail. Trost, 40, was sitting in a vehicle outside the Northwest 48th Court home when she was fatally shot. Crime-scene photographs presented during the self-defense hearing showed a firearm in her purse, according to NBC 6 South Florida. The state maintains that the gun never left the purse. That makes the location and handling of Trost’s firearm one of the most consequential factual disputes before the judge.
The defense has also presented evidence about Reese’s relationship with the former landlord, including emails it says showed Reese was owed money. His attorneys argue that he went to the home to talk and did not arrive with a plan to commit violence. Prosecutors, however, point to the landlord dispute, Reese’s reason for going to the property and his early statements after the shooting as circumstances the judge should weigh against the later self-defense account.
Coral Springs police initially responded to the shooting at about 12:33 p.m. on Dec. 23, 2021. Officers found Trost, a 40-year-old Parkland resident, in the driver’s seat of a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Police detained Reese in connection with the killing and later charged him with first-degree murder.
The case now turns from the earlier fight over interrogation evidence to the justification Reese says existed at the moment he fired. The judge considering his self-defense request must weigh competing accounts of that encounter without treating the pending murder charge as proof of guilt. As of Sept. 5, reliable sources reviewed for this report did not show that the judge had issued a final decision on the dismissal request.
Author note: Last updated September 5, 2026.