State v. Wilkins, 131 So. 3d 839

Louisiana self-defense law under La.R.S. 14:20, including the duty to retreat/escape, is at issue.
2006 La. Acts 141 amended 14:20 by adding subsections C and D to define stand-your-ground and remove retreat as a factor.
The amendments were interpreted to allow standing ground with deadly force without considering retreat, and to bar juries from weighing retreat in the reasonableness analysis.
Some pre-2006 decisions continued to adhere to the old retreat-avoidance rule, creating a potential conflict with the amendments' intent.
The court in this writ proceedings addresses whether subsections C and D operate together as a substantive, prospective change.
The charged crime and self-defense claim occurred before the 2006 amendments’ effective date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do subsections C and D constitute a substantive, prospective change to the law?	State advocates for the change as substantive and prospective.	Defendant contends the amendments are a procedural change applicable only to trials after effective date when considering post-incident conduct.	Subsections C and D constitute a substantive, prospective change and apply together to post-2006 cases.

State v. Brown, 414 So.2d 726 (La. 1982) (retreat/escape as factor in reasonable belief inquiry)
Segura v. Frank, 630 So.2d 714 (La.1994) (substantive laws establish new rights and duties)
State v. Sepulvado, 342 So.2d 630 (La.1977) (procedural laws relate to remedy and mode of prosecution)
State v. Johnson, 884 So.2d 568 (La.2004) (legislature presumed to intend changes when wording differs)
Vedol, 113 So.3d 1119 (La.App.5th Cir. 2013) (no unqualified duty to retreat; escape as a factor remained in some decisions)
State v. Mahler, So.3d (La.App. 4th Cir. 2013) (subsections C and D apply together and prospectively)