A Court Ordered Change To OK "Stand Your Ground" Law

[alsaqr]

i don't know much about law. For years i read the OK "stand your ground" law on it's face. Just learned that in 2018 the OK Court of Criminal Appeals reversed its previous stance and changed how "stand your ground" claims of immunity are handled. Previously the ruling on claimed immunity from prosecution came before the trial began. Now claims of immunity from prosecution are considered after the shooter is found guilty.

This is a big deal. Early this year someone in the OK House of representatives proposed legislation to fix the law. Methinks it went nowhere.

https://www.uslawshield.com/court-attacks-stand-your-ground-law/

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Court's opinion may be read here.

Discussion should be based on the opinion.

 

[1942bull]

I read the decision and I think it is not as draconian as the OP thinks it might be. I will make some comments after each quotation from the decision.

We hold today that an extraordinary writ proceeding is not cognizable to allow merits review of a District Court's pretrial ruling denying Stand Your Ground immunity. While we recognize a direct appeal is not a true substitute for the interlocutory appeal Petitioner seeks, there is simply no statutorily authorized means under existing law to address the issue pretrial as it is presented here.

Simply stated the court declared that there is no procedural mechanism for it to grant the petitioner’s (shooters’s) request.

When criminal charges are filed, the only way courts can truly determine whether a defendant is immune from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law is for the State to present evidence showing all of the facts and circumstances regarding the commission of the alleged crime; and then for the defendant to present evidence showing why, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant's use of force was reasonable and justified under the Stand Your Ground law. Such a procedure is the very essence of a criminal prosecution. In other words, a defendant must be prosecuted to some extent in order for Oklahoma courts to determine if he or she is legally not guilty of a crime.

The court is saying that the determination of whether “stand your ground applies” is fact specific, and that the best way,to determine the facts to determine whether SYG apples is the evidentiary process of a trial “to some extent.”

District Attorneys of Oklahoma should continue to include Stand Your Ground considerations 8 to decide what criminal charges should be filed. .............................. Trial courts should continue to use motion hearings and preliminary examination proceedings to address arguments and precepts concerning Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. We are confident that all due process and statutory Stand Your Ground requirements will be fully satisfied by such efforts even though there are no available appellate challenges for interlocutory Stand Your Ground decisions.

The court is supportive of prosecutorial discretion through standard procedures to determine if prosecution is warranted in the face of a SYG defense.

This case originated when the petitioner did not accept a lower court ruling and asked the appeals court to overturn with a SYG ruling. The court said it could;d not do that as it had no procedural way to so. Appeals courts rarely examine facts. They sort out whether the applicable law was properly interpreted by the trial court. In this case it seems that the rejection of a SYG defense by the trial court was fact based. The petitioner asked appeal’s court to overturn a Pre Trial
Ruling, not a determination of guilt. The appeals court simply said that the legal process must proceed. It in no way affects SYG law.

 

[Kleanbore]

This "news" is two years old.

 

[1942bull]

This "news" is two years old.

Indeed old news, but it seemed to me that it ought to be clarified for those who might wonder or have concern about what the OP suggested.

 

[Kleanbore]

ndeed old news, but it seemed to me that it ought to be clarified for those who might wonder or have concern about what the OP suggested.

Good

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"District Attorneys of Oklahoma should continue to include Stand Your Ground considerations in the exercise of their general discretion and authority to decide what criminal charges should be filed."

In other words, it seems to me, if an OK DA determines the facts of the case are not self-defense or justifiable homicide under SYG, criminal charges may be filed at their discretion. That's how it is under the SYG laws as explained to me for TN and FL.

SYG critics often represent it as granting the defendant some sort of absolute immunity even if the circumstances seem to warrant criminal homicide charges rather than a case of justifiable homicide. It does not.

Searches on the Vicky Pittman McNeely homicide case indicate there were grounds to warrant a full trial. You invoke SYG before charges criminal trial. Never heard of anyone invoking SYG on appeal. Sounds like the defendants attorney was just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something would stick on appeal.

edited

 

[Kleanbore]

You invoke SYG before charges

A motion to request immunity from prosecution cannot be filed until after a suspect has been charged.

"SYG" has to do with the obviation of a legal duty to retreat. The term is mis-applied here--and often.

 

[JTHunter]

The court is saying that the determination of whether “stand your ground applies” is fact specific, and that the best way,to determine the facts to determine whether SYG apples is the evidentiary process of a trial “to some extent.”

Doesn't this mean - basically - that a defendant is going to have to line some lawyer's pocket, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting?

 

[1942bull]

Doesn't this mean - basically - that a defendant is going to have to line some lawyer's pocket, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting?

You can look at in that way or you can look at it this way. It is better to pay a lawyer with money than to pay for not having a lawyer with years of time.

 

[Kleanbore]

Doesn't this mean - basically - that a defendant is going to have to line some lawyer's pocket, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting?

That's' he case, starting immediately.

The first thing a defender will do is engage counsel.

 

[sota]

I thought engaging counsel immediately after any firearms-involving encounter, was prudent anyways. I mean, isn't that the whole point of various self-defense insurance policies out there?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Doesn't this mean - basically - that a defendant is going to have to line some lawyer's pocket, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting?

The circumstances of the shooting aren't decided by the guy who fired those shots. They are decided after the fact, based on the investigation conducted by the police, by the DA, perhaps a grand jury, and, if he's unlucky, by the jury at his trial. One hires a lawyer early on to protect his interests during that process.

This court decision really doesn't change anything in that regard. The only real change this decision makes is how an adverse ruling by a trial court on a motion to dismiss a criminal charge on the grounds of SYG immunity may be challenged.

As the Court of Appeals explains, the SYG immunity is conditional, McNeely v. State, 422 P.3d 1272 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018), at 1275:

...Immunity as used in Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law can be easily misconstrued to mean absolute immunity from prosecution regardless of the underlying facts and circumstances. Yet, the immunity created in section 1289.25 is a conditional immunity meaning that it applies only if certain factual elements are established. See, e.g., People v. Guenther , 740 P.2d 971, 977 (Colo. 1987) (finding Colorado's equivalent Stand Your Ground law provides "conditional immunity" that requires the adjudicatory role of the court to determine if a sufficient factual predicate exists for application of the statute). The applicability of Stand Your Ground is thus entirely dependent on the specific and unique facts and circumstances of the particular incident at issue. See 21 O.S.2011, § 1289.25. The pivotal determination of whether Stand Your Ground applies to any given scenario requires judicial application of the law to the specific facts at hand.

¶8 When criminal charges are filed, the only way courts can truly determine whether a defendant is immune from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law is for the State to present evidence showing all of the facts and circumstances regarding the commission of the alleged crime; and then for the defendant to present evidence showing why, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant's use of force was reasonable and justified under the Stand Your Ground law. Such a procedure is the very essence of a criminal prosecution. In other words, a defendant must be prosecuted....

A defendant charged with a crime of violence and claiming SYG immunity would file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of SYG immunity. Previously, a defendant whose motion to dismiss was denied could effectively seek an immediate appeal by petitioning the Court of Appeals for an extraordinary writ. But now the Court of Appeals is saying that procedure was inappropriate and not properly supported by Oklahoma law.

So now the defendant, following denial of his motion to dismiss, would need to proceed with the trial and argue his self defense claim. If the jury accepts the defendant's claim of justification, he gets his acquittal. If not, the defendant may still appeal.

Even under the prior procedures, a defendant filing a motion to dismiss and then seeking a writ to challenge a denial of that motion would be well advised to have a lawyer at the beginning.

You have the legal right to forego a lawyer and represent yourself, so feel free to choose to do that. It won't be my problem.

 

[JTHunter]

Frank and 1942bull - going back to the OP, what I got out of it was that prior to the court's decision, a lawyer may not have been needed by the person claiming the SYG exception/immunity and now they will need an attorney regardless of SYG status. This court has basically mandated that the SYG shooter will be required to have a hearing, thus necessitating a lawyer where before, one may not have been needed. Again I say that this "benefits" the legal "profession" and hurts the low income defendant. This attitude might also put the onus on said shooter who will now fear financial devastation, possibly making them "think twice" before defending themselves or their family. This might occur at an "inopportune time" (in the heat of the moment) and leave a SYG shooter as cold meat on a slab because they hesitated.

 

[Kleanbore]

going back to the OP, what I got out of it was that prior to the court's decision, a lawyer may not have been needed by the person claiming the SYG exception/immunity and now they will need an attorney regardless of SYG status.

Where on Earth do you see that?

This court has basically mandated that the SYG shooter will be required to have a hearing,

A defendant seeking prosecutorial immunity has always been required to request it.

...thus necessitating a lawyer where before, one may not have been needed.

There is no such requirement, but no one in his right mind would ever proceed without competent legal representation.

That has not changed-- it has been that way since the provision for prosecutorial immunity came into being in the state.

What the ruling did do was eliminate the path, no doubt never intended, for appealing a denial of prosecutorial immunity before a trial, putting Oklahoma in line with other states with laws that provide for prosecutorial immunity. It was really just a clean-up of legal procedure.. Appeals courts rule on matters of law, and rarely on fact. How they could rule on an appeal of a denial of prosecutorial immunity is beyond me.

Again I say that this "benefits" the legal "profession" and hurts the low income defendant. This attitude might also put the onus on said shooter who will now fear financial devastation

If a person uses even a threat of deadly force to defend himself, he may well incur thousands of dollars in legal expenses, starting with the 911 call, even if the case never goes to trial. No change there.

The granting of prosecutorial immunity can reduce the defender's costs by a very great deal.

Now claims of immunity from prosecution are considered after the shooter is found guilty.

That is completely incorrect.

This is a big deal.

No, it is not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank and 1942bull - going back to the OP, what I got out of it was that prior to the court's decision, a lawyer may not have been needed by the person claiming the SYG exception/immunity and now they will need an attorney regardless of SYG status. This court has basically mandated that the SYG shooter will be required to have a hearing, thus necessitating a lawyer where before, one may not have been needed. Again I say that this "benefits" the legal "profession" and hurts the low income defendant....

Then you didn't understand the court's decision. But this is also a very technical issue which can be difficult to understand without sufficient foundational, legal knowledge.

1. If following the investigation of the incident, the District Attorney concludes that the shooter clearly acted in self defense, the shooter won't be prosecuted. That will end the criminal side of things (although in theory the DA's decision could change and charges filed at any time up until the applicable statute of limitations has run).
   
   
   • However, the shooter could still be sued if a possible plaintiff believes that he can establish that the conditions that would trigger civil immunity weren't satisfied.
     
     
   • If the shooter winds up getting sued, he's now the defendant. At that point he'd be well advised to have a lawyer.
   
   
2. Or the DA could charge the shooter with some crime related to his intentional act of violence against another human -- aggravated assault, voluntary manslaughter or murder. At that point the shooter is now a defendant. And if he doesn't have a lawyer, he's also a fool. The defendant is going to be tried for the crime(s) he's charged with, unless he can cut off the prosecution in some other way -- either a legal stratagem or plea bargain.
   
   
   • One way for the defendant to try to cut off the prosecution is to file a motion to dismiss arguing that his conduct satisfied the legal standards entitling him to conditional immunity under the SYG law. Preparing a solid motion to dismiss in this sort of situation is a job for a skilled, qualified lawyer.
     
     
   • If the trial court grants the motion to dismiss, the prosecution could appeal. The defendant would be well advised to have a lawyer represent his interests there as well.
   
   
3. The trial court could deny the motion to dismiss. It's only at this point that the decision in McNeely made a change.
   
   
   • Prior to McNeely, a defendant whose SYG immunity motion to dismiss was denied could file an application with the Court of Appeals for a writ directing the trial court to grant the motion to dismiss. That's another process for which the defendant would be well advised to have a lawyer.
     
     
   • But an appeal is now off the table. So the defendant would need to stand trial and then appeal an adverse judgment.
   
   
4. So the bottom line is that the change effected by McNeely only means anything if the shooter is charged, and at that point he better have a lawyer in any event. However, it does foreclose the possibility of an early appeal if a motion to dismiss is denied.

 

[alsaqr]

Thanks Kleanbore and Frank Ettin for your analyses of the decision.

 

[Kleanbore]

If following the investigation of the incident, the District Attorney concludes that the shooter clearly acted in self defense, the shooter won't be prosecuted.

That may happen, but we must understand that a prudent defender will have engaged legal counsel before making any statements to the investigators, and that the defender's attorney may have sought the services of private investigators.

All of that costs money.

And none of that is new.

So the bottom line is that the change effected by McNeely only means anything if the shooter is charged, and at that point he better have a lawyer in any event. However, it does foreclose the possibility of an early appeal if a motion to dismiss is denied.

Yes.

I wonder what grounds for an appeal might reasonably have existed if a trial judge did not grant immunity....

 

[Milt1]

I don't know that much about the law but it seems to me that there would be enough cases of SYG in Oklahoma where the shooters were justified (and didn't have to go to court) to set the precedence that new cases in court would have to abide by.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it seems to me that there would be enough cases of SYG in Oklahoma where the shooters were justified (and didn't have to go to court) to set the precedence that new cases in court would have to abide by....

I'm sorry, but no, cases that don't go to court aren't any sort of precedent (not "precedence").

In law, precedent is:

....a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts. Some judges have stated that precedent ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge’s personal views.

If the facts or issues of a case differ from those in a previous case, the previous case cannot be precedent. The Supreme Court in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. reiterated that “[q]uestions which merely lurk on the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as . . . precedent[].” Therefore, a prior decision serves as precedent only for issues, given the particular facts, that the court explicitly considered in reaching its decision....

So unless a matter actually goes to court and is adjudicated, how that matter is resolved (outside of court) won't be considered by a court in deciding a different, but similar, matter. In other words, precedent is how a court reached a conclusion in some similar, prior case -- not simply the outcome of some matter that didn't go to court.

 

[Kleanbore]

it seems to me that there would be enough cases of SYG in Oklahoma where the shooters were justified (and didn't have to go to court)

Frank explained the legal aspects. Now let's look at the logic.

If the District Attorney files charges, the case will either go to court, or be settled by some kind of a plea agreement.

The question is one of whether the court will grant prosecutorial immunity or whether the case will go to trial

 

[Milt1]

Thanks guys, glad to have an explanation!

 

[JTHunter]

Thanks guys, glad to have an explanation!

Agreed. It always helps to have someone who understands and can explain the thinking of our legal system.

 

[bikerdoc]

Asked ,answered, explained and closed.