Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation
^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011
|
Yes, of course, the issue must be fairly raised for the instruction to be given - that is significantly different standard, however, than anything saden1 has alluded to. It simply enough evidence to raise a factual question on the issue such that it would survive a motion to dismiss. Further, the evidence can be brought out either by the defense or through the prosecution's evidence. Bottom line, once it gets to the jury and the instruction is given, "the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant." i.e. State must eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the five elements.
In this case, by its indictment of murder2, the prosecution has made GZ's allegedly imperfect self defense claim an element of their charge. As I have said consistently,
in this case, it is the State's burden of proof and persuasion to disprove one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I will concede that this will not be true IF AND ONLY IF the Prosecution can successfully argue that the quoted instructions should not be given b/c the evidence presented did not fairly generate a
prima facie claim of self-defense.
Regardless of the subtleties on the issue -- Is anyone actually asserting that the evidence presented in this matter doesn't present a factual question as to whether GZ acted in self defense and that the jury instructions on self defense should not be given?