A South Florida appeals court has upheld the constitutionality of a controversial change to the state’s ‘stand your ground” self-defense law — but also might have set the stage for a debate at the Florida Supreme Court about how the change should apply in some cases.
The decision Friday by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in a Miami-Dade County shooting case came a week after another appeals court ruled on similar issues in a Hillsborough County case. The two appellate courts disagreed on a key issue about how judges should carry out the “stand your ground” change in older cases, a type of legal conflict that can spur the Supreme Court to take up issues.
Both rulings dealt with a move by the Legislature in 2017 to shift a key burden of proof in “stand your ground” cases from defendants to prosecutors.
In the decision Friday, a panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal disagreed with a Miami-Dade County circuit judge, who ruled that the legislative change was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers. The circuit-court ruling was rooted in the Supreme Court’s constitutionality authority to set rules of practice and procedure for the court system.
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 change was passed last year, the Florida Supreme Court had said defendants had the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution. With backing from groups such as the National Rifle Association, the 2017 change shifted the burden from defendants to prosecutors to prove whether self-defense claims are justified.
In Friday’s decision, the 3rd District Court of Appeal said the Legislature did not overstep its constitutional authority in shifting the burden of proof. It said lawmakers have “the constitutional authority to enact procedural provisions in statutes that are intertwined with substantive rights.”
“The amendment (to the “stand your ground” law in 2017) shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the state (prosecutors) meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence,” said the decision, written by appeal-court Judge Ivan Fernandez and joined by judges Thomas Logue and Edwin Scales. “This is consistent with the well-established legislative practice of passing statutes allocating the burden of proof in judicial proceedings.”
The decision came in a case in which Tashara Love sought to use the “stand your ground” law to be shielded from prosecution after a November 2015 altercation outside a Miami-Dade County nightclub. Love shot a man as he was about to hit her daughter, according to the decision.
But the appeals court Friday ruled against Love on a key issue — and created a conflict with a May 4 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in a Hillsborough County case.
The issue centers on whether the 2017 shift in the burden of proof should be applied to cases that occurred before the change took effect, an issue known as applying the change retroactively.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal turned down Love’s argument that she should be able to use the 2017 change in a “stand your ground” hearing. Such a hearing had not been held in her case at the time the Legislature approved the change, but the appeals court focused on the law that was in effect at the time of the November 2015 shooting.
“(We) hold that the (2017) statute did not apply to Love’s case because the crime she committed occurred before the amendment’s effective date, and the statute has no retroactive application,” the decision said.
But in the Hillsborough County case, a panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal said the change should apply retroactively to the 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 pre-trial hearing.
Martin appealed his conviction, and the appeal was pending when the Legislature and Scott changed the “stand your ground” law. In ruling that the change should apply retroactively to Martin, the 2nd District Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered that he receive a new “stand your ground” hearing under the 2017 law.
The 2nd District panel 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.
In Friday’s decision, the 3rd District panel also certified the retroactivity issue to the Supreme Court because of the conflict with the other appellate court.
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
Well if that doesn’t confuse most of the people in the state and nationally then you are one smart individual, could they at least admit that this is being done to prolong the process of prosecution for the benefit of the legal system and promote job security for our judge, law enforcement and defense lawyers!!
Makes sense government should have to PROVE you did something wrong NOT you having to prove your innocents
It’s about time! A defendant is innocent until proven guilty so why would they ever have had to prove their innocence???? Now we need something to hold more police officer accountable for mistreating and shooting citizens. This is happening far too often and there are far too many internal investigations. Internal investigations are like a student grading their own paper.
Chris A Pickett says
Innocent until proven guilty, that IS the law.
john Dolan says
This is called the “whim’ of law. The power has shifted from the people to the government.
From what I have learned or think I know..I’m not a lawyer or master googler..but about a third of people who have benefitted from stand your ground laws are black folk even though they make up 13% +/- of the population. So it seems a law democrats would approve of overwhelmingly….unfortunately democrats hate guns so much they would be ok with the a little african american cannon fodder via eliminating the stand your ground law…in my opinion.