Florida Justices Take Up ‘Stand Your Ground’ Split

June 27, 2018

With lower courts split on the issue, the Florida Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up a question about whether a 2017 change to the state’s “stand your ground” self-defense law should apply to older cases.

The controversial 2017 change shifted a key burden of proof in “stand your ground” cases — a shift that can play a role in determining whether people claiming self-defense should be shielded from prosecution. But two appellate courts have split about whether the change should apply to defendants who were arrested before the 2017 law took effect but whose cases were pending.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the case of Tashara Love, who sought to use the self-defense law to be shielded from prosecution in a November 2015 shooting incident outside a Miami-Dade County nightclub. The 3rd District Court of Appeal last month ruled that the 2017 burden-of-proof change should not apply retroactively to Love’s case.

In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Love’s attorneys pointed to potentially broad implications.

“This case presents an issue of statewide importance impacting countless criminal prosecutions: whether the 2017 amendment to the Stand Your Ground law applies to all pending cases or only those arising after its enactment,” the attorneys wrote in a brief.

As is common, the Supreme Court’s order Tuesday accepting the case dealt only with procedural issues. But all five justices involved in deciding whether to take up the case — Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, Charles Canady and Ricky Polston — agreed on hearing it.

The “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 pre-trial hearings, defendants are granted immunity from prosecution.

Before the 2017 change, the Supreme Court had ruled that defendants had the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution. But with backing from groups such as the National Rifle Association, lawmakers shifted the burden from defendants to prosecutors to prove whether self-defense claims are justified. By placing the burden on prosecutors, the new version of the law could help at least some defendants in “stand your ground” cases.

While the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that the change should not be applied retroactively, the 2nd District Court of Appeal this spring took the opposite position in a Hillsborough County case.

A panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal said the burden-of-proof change should apply retroactively to Tymothy Ray Martin, who was convicted of felony battery in a 2016 altercation involving his girlfriend. Martin appealed his conviction, and the appeal was pending when the 2017 burden-of-proof change took effect.

Martin’s case also is at the Supreme Court. Amid the conflicting rulings, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office agreed that the Supreme Court should resolve the retroactivity issue — though it suggested justices hear the Martin case instead of the Love case.

“(Courts) of the Third District are forbidden from applying Florida’s Stand Your Ground amendment retroactively, while courts of the Second District must apply it retroactively to all pending cases,” attorneys in Bondi’s office wrote in a brief this month. “This constitutes the requisite ‘express and direct conflict’ that the (Supreme) Court’s conflict jurisdiction is designed to resolve.”

by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida

Comments

8 Responses to “Florida Justices Take Up ‘Stand Your Ground’ Split”

  1. Don Neese on June 30th, 2018 12:27 am

    Regarding
    “If a law is murky or unclear”

    The key word here being “if”. The Stand your ground law is neither murky nor unclear. It’s just not liked. So someone does their best to make it appear unclear
    and murky. And thus enters Judicial Heirarchy which surpasses their jobs.

  2. David Huie Green on June 28th, 2018 11:45 pm

    REGARDING:
    ” “Stand your ground” is law. It was voted in by Florida lawmakers. The courts have no business, nor authority to decide what to do with it. The Courts were never designed to make or change the law. They are to preside over court cases that try offenders on breaking or upholding that particular law. To change a law or the use of a law is called “Judicial Tyranny”. ”

    If a law is murky or unclear, the courts have to determine exactly what it means in the light of other laws. That IS part of their job.

    You can’t say a person broke a law if you don’t know what the law means. Further, there is a hierarchy of laws. A county law which is not permitted under state law is null and void. A state law which is not permitted by the Florida Constitution is null and void. A state constitution which is not permitted by the United States Constitution is null and void. Pointing that out is not “Judicial Tyranny.” Rather, it is judicial duty.

    In this instance, a law was written which the courts interpreted one way. The legislature rewrote the law to make clear they wanted it interpreted another way. The current question is whether the new law clarifies the intent of the old law or is simply a new law which only applies to cases after it was enacted.

    This kind of thing is exactly why we have courts rather than robots.

    David for wisdom

  3. Sedition on June 28th, 2018 7:38 pm

    Stand your ground means don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’. Pretty damn simple. We MUST quit giving violent criminals and their families legal wiggle room. Quit putting the public in fear for their lives and you won’t get shot.
    Seriously, people…it’s not hard to understand. Anyone with a Romper Room education should be able to figure this one out.

  4. John on June 28th, 2018 4:01 pm

    Welcome to California!

  5. Don Neese on June 27th, 2018 10:53 pm

    “Stand your ground” is law. It was voted in by Florida lawmakers. The courts have no business, nor authority to decide what to do with it. The Courts were never designed to make or change the law. They are to preside over court cases that try offenders on breaking or upholding that particular law. To change a law or the use of a law is called “Judicial Tyranny”. This type of court proceeding offsets the balance of our whole judicial system.

    America was founded as a Republic not a democracy, and certainly not a Judicial hierarchy!!

  6. Mark on June 27th, 2018 10:40 pm

    I don’t think anything should apply to “older cases”. That was not the law back then.

  7. john on June 27th, 2018 7:06 am

    People in that area of the state should not be able to claim stand you ground at all!!! They should be required to tell their assailant can I give you a hug, I’m in my safe space, or I’m a sovereign citizen!!!

  8. billy on June 27th, 2018 2:34 am

    Stand your ground…….law or not

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News