Court: Defendants Face Burden In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Case

July 13, 2015

In a case that started with a tourist brandishing a gun during a traffic dispute, the Florida Supreme Court said people who use the state’s controversial “stand your ground” legal defense have the burden of proving they should be shielded from prosecution.

The 5-2 ruling dealt with a key part of the way the state has carried out the “stand your ground” law, which in part provides immunity to people who use justifiable force in self-defense.

In “stand your ground” cases, pre-trial evidentiary hearings are held to determine whether defendants are immune from prosecution because of the law. The Supreme Court ruling centered on who should have the burden of proof during those hearings — defendants or prosecutors.

Justices sided with lower courts that have required defendants to prove that they should be protected from prosecution by the self-defense law. The majority opinion, written by Justice Barbara Pariente, said immunity in the “stand your ground” law “is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that the use of force was legally justified.”

“We conclude that placing the burden of proof on the defendant to establish entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity by a preponderance of the evidence at the pretrial evidentiary hearing, rather than on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of force was not justified, is consistent with this court’s precedent and gives effect to the legislative intent,” said the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry.

Justice R. Fred Lewis concurred in the outcome, though he did not sign on to the majority opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Charles Canady wrote that the majority ruling “substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.”

“The factual question raised by the assertion of Stand Your Ground immunity in a pretrial evidentiary hearing is the same as the factual question raised by a Stand Your Ground defense presented at trial: whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was not justified under the governing statutory standard,” Canady wrote in the dissent, which was joined by Justice Ricky Polston.

The ruling came in a case that started in 2011 with a dispute on Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway in Osceola County. Jared Bretherick, a tourist from Indiana, was a backseat passenger in a vehicle driven by his father that was almost side-swiped by a truck, according to a summary in the Supreme Court opinion.

The driver of the truck, identified in court documents as Derek Dunning, then abruptly stopped in front of the Bretherick vehicle. Dunning, who was unarmed, got out of his truck and approached the vehicle. Bretherick’s father held up a holstered gun, which led Dunning to return to his truck.

Bretherick subsequently got out of the vehicle and approached the truck while pointing the handgun at Dunning, the court opinion said. He later went back to the family’s vehicle and continued pointing the gun at Dunning. Police arrived after receiving 911 calls, and Bretherick was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm.

After an evidentiary hearing, a circuit judge ruled that Bretherick was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under the “stand your ground” law. The judge pointed to Dunning’s retreat to his truck after Bretherick’s father showed the handgun, ruling that the “threat was no longer imminent, and in fact, the possible volatile situation had been diffused. The defendant’s subjective fear was no longer reasonable.”

The National Rifle Association and another gun-rights group, Florida Carry Inc. filed briefs in the Supreme Court supporting Bretherick. But the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association backed the state’s position on the burden-of-proof issue.

by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida

Comments

7 Responses to “Court: Defendants Face Burden In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Case”

  1. Jason on July 15th, 2015 5:25 pm

    Let’s review this law. It’s called “stand your ground”, when he stood his ground in his vehicle, he was well within the law. When he pursued the unarmed guy, then he is not covered by “stand your ground” law.

  2. Dan on July 13th, 2015 8:27 pm

    Based on the article its pretty simple to me. Dunning apparently was way out of line with his actions but once he was greeted by the elder Bretherick with a weapon at their vehicle he retreaded. I would want to think at this point the immediate threat was under control but the elder Bretherick chose to remove himself from his vehicle and approach Dunnings vehicle.

    Sorry, but when Bretherick pursued the prior threat that has retreaded he’s on his own. The ground he was standing on certainly was shaky when he left the immediate area of his own vehicle to approach Dunning at his vehicle.

    A few grand to keep the elder Bretherick out of jail is a bargain.

  3. chris in Molino on July 13th, 2015 5:18 pm

    @Jeeperman & Lou
    Not only spend thousands of dollars, but the state, who judges ultimately side with, want to be able to decide who gets a pass and who doesn’t. No doubt media and public opinion will play a major part in that decision. Too bad the driver who cut the father off and blocked their path (Derek Dunning) wasn’t flying a confederate flag from his vehicle, he’d have been the one charged. (I do know it happened before the flag debauchery, just bein funny)

  4. 429SCJ on July 13th, 2015 8:34 am

    When you carry a sidearm, you will eventually find a reason to use it, or a reason will come upon and find you.

    Big responsibility and liability on one hand, potentially lifesaving self protection on the other. I support PCC and hope that none of us have to deal with such a situation, but are drilled and prepared for such in case we do.

  5. Concerned Citizen on July 13th, 2015 8:34 am

    Common sense should be used to decide whether to pull your weapon or not. No deadly threat, no use of deadly force required. The showing of the weapon was legal, if I remember the laws correctly, as long as it was not pointed at the truck driver. When the passenger left the vehicle and pointed the weapon at the truck driver, he became the law breaker. Again……no deadly threat, no use of deadly force required.

  6. Lou on July 13th, 2015 7:44 am

    Whatever happened to the requirement that the state has the burden of proof
    on all criminal matters? Why is this one different? Maybe the “Justices” need
    to take another look at this matter from a constitutional standpoint.

  7. jeeperman on July 13th, 2015 7:05 am

    What this ruling means is that now if you are involved in a “Stand-your-ground” incident, you have to hire an attorney and spend several thousand dollars to keep your self out of jail.
    The trial lawyers and justice industry lobbies and wins again.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News