313 So.3d 658
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- In Feb. 2016 Tymothy Martin was charged with felony battery after a McDonald’s parking-lot altercation with his girlfriend; Martin claimed he acted in self‑defense and invoked Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" immunity statute (section 776.032).
- Martin moved for immunity and the trial court held a pretrial hearing, denied immunity (stating the defense had not met its burden), and the case proceeded to a jury trial that resulted in conviction.
- While Martin’s appeal was pending, the Florida Legislature (June 9, 2017) amended section 776.032 to place the burden, by clear and convincing evidence, on the State to overcome a facially sufficient pretrial claim of self‑defense immunity.
- Martin argued the amendment applies retroactively and entitles him to a new immunity hearing under the amended burden allocation. The State argued retroactive application was improper.
- The Second DCA concluded the burden‑of‑proof change is procedural (not substantive), applied retroactively to pending cases, and ordered reversal and remand for a new immunity hearing under the amended statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2017 amendment to § 776.032 is procedural or substantive | Martin: burden change is procedural and may be applied retroactively | State: burden change affects rights and thus cannot be retroactively applied under the Florida Constitution | Procedural; not a substantive change to elements or punishment, so presumptively retroactive |
| Whether the amendment applies to cases pending on appeal at enactment | Martin: amendment applies to pending cases and appeals | State: amendment cannot impair prosecutions for pre‑enactment conduct | Applies to pending cases, including those on appeal; Martin’s appeal was pending when amendment took effect |
| Whether prior immunity hearing remains dispositive given changed burden | Martin: prior hearing is insufficient because burden shift is potentially dispositive and altered parties’ strategies | State: prior hearing and trial resolve the issues | New evidentiary immunity hearing required because the burden shift materially affects presentation/outcome |
| Remedy if immunity is not proven under new standard | Martin: remand for new hearing and, if immunity found, dismissal with prejudice | State: reinstate conviction if immunity rejected | Court reversed conviction, remanded for new immunity hearing; if immunity granted, dismiss with prejudice; if denied, reinstate conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010) (pretrial evidentiary hearing required for Stand Your Ground immunity)
- Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2015) (defendant bears burden by preponderance for immunity under prior law)
- Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007) (framework for evaluating retroactivity of statutory changes)
- Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1999) (definition of retroactive statute and related analysis)
- Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1976) (burden allocation often dispositive of litigation outcome)
- Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1977) (burden of proof is procedural in nature)
- McDaniel v. State, 24 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (remand for new Stand Your Ground hearing where prior order omitted applicable evidentiary standard)