In its 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court majority opinion — written by Justice Barbara Pariente — said immunity in the “stand your ground” law “is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that the use of force was legally justified.”
But a dissenting opinion, written by Justice Charles Canady and joined by Justice Ricky Polston, countered that the majority ruling “substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.”
The Senate last month voted 23-15 to approve the bill, but the House made changes that will require the Senate to consider it again.
The House wants to require prosecutors in “stand your ground” cases to overcome the asserted immunity through “clear and convincing evidence.” The Senate version set the standard as being “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, said the House standard is easier for the state to prove.
“If the government cannot beat the lesser, easier burden in an immunity trial, then they darned sure can’t meet beyond and to the exclusion of each and every reasonable doubt when they ask for a conviction,” Grant said.
