260 So. 3d 445
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Roy P. Boston was charged with battery for a 2016 offense and moved for Stand Your Ground (SYG) immunity.
- In 2017 the Florida Legislature amended section 776.032(4), shifting the burden/quantum: once defendant raises a prima facie SYG claim, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not entitled to immunity.
- Boston argued the 2017 amendment is procedural and should apply retroactively to his 2016 conduct; the State argued the amendment is substantive and applies only prospectively.
- The trial court held the amendment was substantive, required Boston to prove entitlement by a preponderance, and denied immunity after the defense rested; the case proceeded to trial and Boston was convicted of battery.
- The First District affirmed the denial of a mistrial claim but reversed the SYG ruling based on the court's recent decisions holding the 2017 amendment applies retroactively, and remanded for a new immunity determination under the amended standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2017 amendment to Fla. Stat. §776.032(4) applies retroactively | Boston: amendment is procedural; applies retroactively to his 2016 offense | State: amendment is substantive; applies only prospectively | Court: applies retroactively (following this Court's Commander and Edwards decisions); remand for new SYG analysis under §776.032(4) (2017) |
| Proper burden/quantum to resolve SYG claim at pretrial evidentiary hearing | Boston: under amended statute, once prima facie shown, State must disprove immunity by clear and convincing evidence | State: pre-amendment rule required defendant to prove entitlement by preponderance | Court: on remand, State must meet clear-and-convincing burden if defendant establishes prima facie claim under the 2017 statute |
| Timing of SYG determination (pretrial vs. at trial) | Boston: entitlement should be determined pretrial so immunity can prevent trial | State: parties stipulated judge could consider immunity at trial | Held: ordinarily should be decided pretrial, but here parties agreed trial evidence may be used; court may either rely on trial record or hold new evidentiary hearing |
| Necessity of a new immunity hearing after conviction | Boston: conviction followed an incorrect legal standard, so new hearing required | State: argued prospective application so no relief | Held: reversal and remand for new immunity determination under the 2017 standard; other issues not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015) (pre-amendment rule: defendant must prove SYG entitlement by preponderance at evidentiary hearing)
- Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010) (SYG motions ordinarily resolved at pretrial evidentiary hearing)
- Commander v. State, 246 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (2017 amendment to §776.032 applies retroactively)
- Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (concluding 2017 amendment is substantive and prospective; cert. review granted)
- Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (procedural notes on handling SYG motions and hearings)