Boston v. State

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida
• Citation: 326 So.3d 673
• Docket Number: No. SC20-1164,SC20-1164
• Parties: Roy P. BOSTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 07 October 2021

326 So.3d 673

Roy P. BOSTON, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC20-1164

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 7, 2021

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, and Kasey Lacey, Assistant Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Christopher J. Baum, Senior Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent

CANADY, C.J.

In this case we consider whether a defendant convicted by jury verdict after raising a self-defense claim is entitled to a new immunity hearing if the trial court applied the incorrect standard at the immunity hearing under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2017), known as Florida's Stand Your Ground law. We have for review Boston v. State (Boston II ), 296 So. 3d 580, 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), in which the First District answered that question in the negative and, in doing so, certified conflict with the Second District's decision in Nelson v. State , 295 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the First District's holding in Boston II and disapprove Nelson .

I. BACKGROUND

Under the Stand Your Ground law, a person is generally "immune from criminal prosecution and civil action" when that person justifiably uses or threatens to use force under certain circumstances. § 776.032(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). The immunity from prosecution "includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant." Id. Section 776.032 provides immunity for "[a] person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031." Id. Relevant to this case, section 776.012 provides:

326 So.3d 675

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

§ 776.012, Fla. Stat. (2017).

The question presented here regards the proper remedy for the application of an incorrect burden of proof at an immunity hearing. In 2015, this Court held that "the defendant bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to demonstrate entitlement to Stand Your Ground immunity at the pretrial evidentiary hearing." Bretherick v. State , 170 So. 3d 766, 775 (Fla. 2015), superseded by statute as stated in Sparks v. State , 299 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). In apparent response to Bretherick , the Legislature amended section 776.032 in 2017, adding the following subsection:

(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

See Ch. 2017-72, Laws of Fla.; § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017). The amendment provided that it would "take effect upon becoming a law," which occurred on June 9, 2017. Id . In light of the 2017 amendment, a defendant is no longer required to prove that he or she acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence at an immunity hearing; instead, a defendant need only make a prima facie showing at that point. To defeat the claim of immunity, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Boston was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, arising from a 2016 altercation in which he struck his former employer with a hammer. Boston filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under section 776.032. The parties agreed that the trial court would hear Boston's immunity motion during trial. Before commencing the trial and immunity hearing on November 8, 2017, the trial court heard argument regarding whether to apply the 2017 burden-shifting amendment to section 776.032 retroactively...