Recent Florida Supreme Court Decision Discusses Stand Your Ground Immunity Standards

October 12, 2021 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Brief Summary

On October 7, 2021, the Supreme Court of Florida reviewed Boston v. State. This case arose out of the First District Court of Appeal in 2020 and discussed the correct standard of Stand Your Ground Immunity under Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes. The First District Court of Appeal concluded that a defendant convicted by a jury after raising a self-defense claim is not entitled to a new immunity hearing if the trial court applied the incorrect standard at the immunity hearing, which conflicted with prior Second District Court of Appeal decision, Nelson v. State. The Florida Supreme Court approved the First District Court of Appeal’s holding in Boston II and disapproved Nelson.

Background on the Stand Your Ground Statute

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law generally provides that a person is “immune from criminal prosecution and civil action” when they use, or threaten to use, justifiable force under the circumstances. This immunity includes immunity from prosecution, arrest, detainment, and charging. Additionally, Section 776.032 provides immunity for a person who threatens to use or uses force as permitted in Sections 776.012, 776.013, or 776.031. Relevant to this opinion, Section 776.012 states that:

• A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
• A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself – 3 – or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In 2015, Florida’s Supreme Court held that a defendant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show they are entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity at a pretrial evidentiary hearing. In response to this holding, Florida’s legislature amended the Stand Your Ground statute, specifically Section 776.032, in 2017, adding a subsection:

(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

After this amendment, a criminal defendant does not have to prove that they acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing on immunity. Now, the defendant only has to make prima facie showing at that point. The State, in order to overcome the defendant’s claim of immunity, has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Facts of the Case

In 2016, Boston was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after striking his former employer with a hammer. He filed a motion to dismiss and argued that he was entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity under Section 776.032. The parties stipulated to the trial court’s hearing of his immunity motion during trial. Before this hearing, the trial court hearing argument about whether it should apply the 2017 amendment to Section 776.032 retroactively to Boston’s case. It ultimately decided that the pre-amendment standard of Section 776.032 would apply, so Boston would bear the burden of proof and would have to establish his entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. After the immunity hearing during trial, the court rejected Boston’s claim of immunity and the jury rejected his self-defense claim. He was ultimately convicted of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor battery.

Boston’s initial appeal was awaiting review in the Florida Supreme Court in 2019. During that time, the Court decided Love v. State, where it held that the 2017 amendment to Section 776.032 applied to immunity hearings that take place on or after June 9, 2017, the statute’s effective date. So, it should have applied to Boston’s immunity hearing, which took place on November 8, 2017. Due to this, the Florida Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review of Boston I, quashed the First District’s decision, and remanded to the First District for reexamination pursuant to the Love decision and the amended Section 776.032(4).

Upon remand, the First District held that, because Boston’s hearing took place after the effective date of the amended statute, the trial court erred in failing to apply the newer Stand Your Ground standard. However, since Boston was convicted at trial, the First District evaluated “whether a defendant convicted at trial by proof beyond a reasonable doubt is entitled to a new immunity hearing if the trial court applied the wrong standard at a hearing conducted after the effective date of the amendment to the Stand-Your-Ground statute. The court concluded that “under those circumstances, a defendant is not entitled to a new immunity hearing” because “the State’s trial burden of overcoming the defendant’s self-defense claim by proof beyond a reasonable doubt is heavier than its pretrial burden of overcoming the defendant’s self-defense immunity claim by clear and convincing evidence.” So, a trial court’s error in applying the correct burden, or standard, at the immunity hearing can be fixed if the State establishes that the defendant is guilty during trial by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The First District ended up affirming Boston’s conviction and then certifying a conflict with Nelson, a Second District decision wherein the court held that a defendant was entitled to a new hearing if the trial court erroneously applied the pre-amendment burden of proof in the hearing, even though the defendant had been convicted by a jury.

The Issue

Whether a defendant who is convicted by a jury verdict after raising a self-defense claim is entitled to a new immunity hearing if the trial court applied the pre-amendment burden, an incorrect standard, at the immunity hearing under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

The Court’s Conclusion

To issue their decision, the Court looked to earlier decisions, like Dennis v. State, where the Court considered “whether a trial court should conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing and resolve issues of fact when ruling on a motion to dismiss asserting immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to Section 776.032, Florida Statutes.” The Court held that the trial court erred in denying Dennis an evidentiary hearing, but that error was harmless because there was “no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to make a pretrial evidentiary determination regarding Dennis’s immunity claim contributed to Dennis’s conviction” at trial since Dennis got to present his claim of self-defense to the jury. The jury ultimately rejected Dennis’s theory of self-defense and “determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis committed the lesser included offense of felony battery.” Florida’s Supreme Court found that the First District’s holding in Boston II is in line with Dennis.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that, when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in justifiable self-defense, the clear and convincing standard is exceeded, since the former is a higher standard of proof. Therefore, a trial court’s error in applying the correct burden can be considered remedied if the State establishes at trial that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tallahassee Criminal Defense Attorney

Boston II shows how nuanced and complex Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is when put into practice. In order to ensure that you or a loved one fully understand Stand Your Ground immunity, it is imperative you retain a knowledgeable and experienced Tallahassee criminal defense attorney. Don Pumphrey and the members of the legal team at Pumphrey Law Firm are incredibly informed on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and can ensure that you or a loved one will be familiar with and educated on this defense, if applicable. Call us today at (850) 681-7777 or send an online message to discuss your case during an open and free consultation with an attorney in our legal team.

This article was written by Gabi D’Esposito

  Social Share