Ruling Could Aid Defendants in 'Stand Your Ground' Cases
The ruling, issued Friday by a panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, stemmed from a change that shifted a key burden of proof in “stand your ground” cases from defendants to prosecutors.
May 09, 2018 at 12:19 PM
4 minute read
In a decision that could have broad implications, an appeals court has sided with a defendant who argued that a controversial 2017 change to Florida's “stand your ground” self-defense law should apply to his case.
The ruling, issued Friday by a panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, stemmed from a change that shifted a key burden of proof in “stand your ground” cases from defendants to prosecutors.
The appeals court said the change should apply retroactively to the Hillsborough County case of Tymothy Ray Martin, who was convicted of felony battery in a 2016 altercation involving his girlfriend. Martin had sought to use the “stand your ground” law to be shielded from prosecution, but a judge denied his request in a pretrial hearing.
Martin appealed his conviction, and the appeal was pending when the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott changed the “stand your ground” law to shift the burden of proof. In ruling Friday that the change should apply retroactively to Martin, the appeals court overturned his conviction and ordered that he receive a new “stand your ground” hearing under the 2017 law.
“If, after the conclusion of that hearing, the circuit court concludes that Mr. Martin is entitled to statutory immunity, it shall enter an order to that effect and dismiss the information [charge] with prejudice,” said the ruling, written by appeals court Judge Matthew Lucas and joined by Judges Darryl Casanueva and Daniel Sleet. “If, on the other hand, the circuit court determines that Mr. Martin is not entitled to immunity, the court shall enter an order reflecting its findings and reinstate Mr. Martin's conviction.”
The appeals court noted the potential implications of retroactively applying the burden-of-proof change to cases pending in the court system at the time the 2017 law passed, saying it “could impact a significant number of criminal proceedings.” Also, the appeals court asked the Florida Supreme Court to take up the retroactivity issue, a move known as certifying “a question of great public importance” to justices.
The underlying “stand your ground” law says people are justified in using deadly force and do not have a “duty to retreat” if they believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. When the defense is successfully raised in pretrial hearings, defendants are granted immunity from prosecution.
The change approved last year by the Legislature and Scott was rooted in a 2015 Florida Supreme Court decision that said defendants had the burden of proof in the pretrial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution. With backing from groups such as the National Rifle Association, the 2017 law shifted the burden from defendants to prosecutors to prove whether a self-defense claim is justified.
In Martin's original pretrial hearing, he had the burden of proving that he should not be prosecuted because he acted in self-defense. After Friday's ruling, the burden will shift to prosecutors to show that he is not entitled to “stand your ground” immunity.
“Thus, as it now stands, the state [prosecution] bears the burden of disproving, by clear and convincing evidence, a facially sufficient claim of self-defense immunity in a criminal prosecution,” Friday's ruling said. “On appeal, Mr. Martin argues that this amendment is retroactive in its application, that it applies to his case, and that he is entitled to a new immunity hearing. We agree.”
The burden-of-proof change sparked heavy debate in the Legislature. It also has drawn legal challenges, which last year led to a Miami-Dade County circuit judge declaring it unconstitutional.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250