253 So. 3d 1137
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ronald Hight Jr. shot and killed his boss during a 2012 altercation; charged with second-degree murder and later convicted of manslaughter after trial.
- Hight filed a pretrial Stand Your Ground immunity motion under section 776.032 and a pretrial immunity hearing occurred in 2014; the trial court denied immunity (applicant had to prove justification by preponderance).
- At the immunity hearing the court found evidence showed at most a chest bump and that Hight had not proved deadly force was necessary by a preponderance.
- After denial, the case proceeded to a five-day jury trial; jury convicted Hight of manslaughter in 2016. Hight appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the Legislature (June 9, 2017) amended section 776.032 to add subsection (4), shifting the burden to the State to overcome a prima facie claim and raising the standard to clear and convincing evidence.
- The Fourth District held the 2017 amendment is substantive (creates new legal burdens) and thus applies prospectively only; it affirmed Hight’s conviction and certified conflict with cases that reached different conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hight) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 2017 amendment to §776.032(4) applies to Hight’s case | Amendment is procedural and ameliorative (changes burden/standard) and should apply retroactively to cases pending on appeal | Amendment is substantive (creates new legal burdens on prosecution), effective June 9, 2017, and should apply prospectively only | Amendment is substantive; does not apply retroactively; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007) (framework for deciding prospective vs. retroactive application of statutes; remedial vs. substantive distinction)
- Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015) (defendant bears burden by preponderance at pretrial Stand Your Ground immunity hearing)
- Kumar v. Patel, 227 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2017) (Stand Your Ground statute eliminates common-law duty to retreat)
- Pizarro, 383 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1980) (Savings Clause bars retroactive application of amended criminal statutes affecting prosecution or punishment)
- Raines v. State, 28 So. 57 (Fla. 1900) (historical exposition of the Savings Clause giving criminal legislation prospective effect)
- Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 783 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2001) (courts must give effect to legislative text and effective dates)
- Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Fla. Mun. Power Agency, 789 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2001) (statutes interpreted according to words used; effective date evidences legislative intent)