286 So.3d 177
Fla.2019Background
- Nov. 26, 2015: Tashara Love shot Thomas Lane while defending her daughter and was charged with attempted second-degree murder.
- Love moved for Stand Your Ground immunity; the trial court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing and denied immunity under Bretherick (defendant bears preponderance burden).
- In 2017 the Legislature amended section 776.032 to add subsection (4), shifting the burden at pretrial immunity hearings: once the defendant makes a prima facie claim, the State must overcome immunity by clear and convincing evidence (effective upon becoming law).
- The Third DCA (Love v. State) held the 2017 amendment substantive and not retroactive, so it did not apply to Love’s case; the Second DCA (Martin) had held the amendment procedural and retroactive, creating a certified conflict.
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third DCA: it held §776.032(4) is procedural, may be applied in pending cases, but only to immunity hearings conducted on or after the statute’s effective date; it disapproved Martin’s ordering of new hearings where pre-effective hearings had already occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §776.032(4) is procedural or substantive | Love: amendment is procedural (burden of proof) | State: amendment is substantive because it imposes a new legal burden on prosecution | Court: §776.032(4) is procedural (changes how immunity is decided, not elements/punishment) |
| Whether the amendment applies to pending cases generally (retroactivity) | Love: procedural rules should apply to pending cases | State: retroactive application barred; Art. X, §9 prevents changing prosecution/punishment | Court: procedural change applies to pending cases only as to hearings held on or after the statute’s effective date (post-effective hearings governed by new rule) |
| Whether Art. X, §9 of the Florida Constitution bars application in pending cases | Love: Art. X, §9 does not bar procedural changes that do not alter offense or punishment | State: §9 prevents changes that affect prosecution; shift in burden alters prosecution | Court: §9 inapplicable because statute is procedural and does not change the essence of offenses or punishment; it does not prevent applying the new burden to hearings after effective date |
| Whether defendants whose immunity hearings occurred pre-effective date are entitled to new hearings | Love: new rule should not invalidate completed hearings; only hearings on/after effective date governed by statute | State: (argued against retroactive application) but some courts ordered new hearings | Court: No new hearing required where the immunity hearing occurred before the statute’s effective date (disapproving Martin’s remedy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2010) (pretrial evidentiary hearing required to decide statutory immunity)
- Bretherick v. State, 170 So.3d 766 (Fla. 2015) (held defendant bore preponderance burden at pretrial immunity hearing)
- Smiley v. State, 966 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2007) (held original Stand Your Ground provision substantive and not retroactive)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (retroactivity inquiry whether statute attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
- State v. Garcia, 229 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1969) (distinguishing substantive law—which defines crimes and punishments—from procedural law)
- Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh, 645 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1994) (discussing presumption against retroactive application of statutes affecting substantive rights)
- Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (procedural statutes are generally applied retrospectively to pending cases)
- State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1990) (Art. X, §9 did not bar application where amendment did not alter offense or punishment)
- Lee v. State, 174 So. 589 (Fla. 1937) (procedural statutes may apply to pending cases depending on legislative intent and posture of the case)