Does A Guilty Verdict At Trial Cure Stand Your Ground Immunity Hearing Errors in Florida?

October 9, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s Supreme Court rules that a guilty verdict at trial can override trial court errors at a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing.

In Florida, Stand Your Ground (Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032, 776.041) is a frequently discussed law. It permits someone to use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if this is a reasonable and proportional response to a threat to themselves, others, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If someone is charged and files a motion to dismiss based on Stand Your Ground, they are entitled to a pretrial immunity hearing. At that hearing, the defendant must allege facts that constitute a prima facie (on its face) showing of a lawful use of force under Stand Your Ground.

Once this is done, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not validly use or threaten force in accordance with the Stand Your Ground law (e.g. that it was not a reasonable and proportional response to the threat faced). Mobley v. State, 132 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

If the State does so, the case advances to trial, where the defendant’s guilt must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. But if the State fails to rebut a defendant’s prima facie showing of lawful use of force by clear and convincing evidence, the case is to be dismissed before trial.

This wasn’t always the case. Before the law changed in 2017, the burden of proof was on the defendant at a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing. Rather than simply introducing facts that provide a prima facie showing of lawful use of force before the burden shifted to the State, the defendant actually had to prove their use of force was lawful by a preponderance of the evidence.

That was a higher burden for defendants, which was criticized before the law changed in 2017. But in the months (and even years) after the burden of proof shifted from the defendant to the State (as long as the defendant makes a prima facie showing of Stand Your Ground), some Florida courts misapplied the law. 

Those courts relied mistakenly on the old version that required the defendant to prove Stand Your Ground by a preponderance of the evidence. This was the case in Boston v. State, 326 So.3d 673 (Fla. 2021) – and Boston (the defendant) was eventually found guilty at trial.

On appeal, Boston argued that because the court required him to prove immunity by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the State to show lack of immunity by clear and convincing evidence), he was wrongfully tried and convicted. Thus, he asserted, the trial verdict must be reversed.

But Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (which covers Tallahassee and Northwest Florida) disagreed, affirming the trial verdict in spite of the judge’s misapplication of the Stand Your Ground law at the immunity hearing. Boston v. State, 296 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

The court reasoned that the burden of proof at trial – beyond a reasonable doubt – was higher than the clear and convincing evidence burden at the pretrial hearing. The court held that since the State proved Boston guilty to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court’s erroneous application of the burden of proof at the immunity hearing was cured by the jury’s verdict.

The 1st District Court of Appeal’s decision conflicted with the 2nd DCA’s finding months earlier in Nelson v. State, 295 So. 3d 307 (Fla.2d. DCA 2020). There, the 2nd DCA held that requiring Nelson to prove his use of force was lawful by a preponderance of the evidence at the immunity required a reversal of his aggravated assault conviction.

This conflict between the two DCAs was resolved by the Florida Supreme Court, when they heard Boston’s appeal from the 1st DCA in 2021. Boston v. State, 326 So.3d 673 (Fla. 2021). The Florida Supreme Court ruled against Boston, siding with the 1st DCA and overruling the 2nd DCA’s decision in Nelson.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the 1st DCA’s reasoning, analogizing the case to Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010). The Supreme Court wrote:

“Dennis concluded that when a jury determines that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding a claim of self-defense, that determination cures the trial court’s erroneous failure to hold a pretrial immunity hearing; Boston II similarly held that the same jury determination cures a trial court’s erroneous application of an incorrect burden and standard of proof at an immunity hearing.”

The Court ruled that any “injury” suffered by Boston through the misapplication of the burden at the pretrial immunity hearing did not ultimately change the outcome of the case. If the State proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the Court reasoned, they would have been able to prove he was not entitled to pretrial immunity by clear and convincing evidence.

Ruling against Boston, the Florida Supreme Court concluded:

“In order to convict Boston at trial, the jury had to reject his claim of self-defense by concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. … To now vacate Boston’s conviction (and his waiver of a pretrial immunity hearing) and remand for a new pretrial immunity hearing at which the State would be required to prove by the lesser standard of clear and convincing evidence that Boston did not act in self-defense, would violate the statutory prohibition on reversing a judgment in the absence of error ‘that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.’”

The Florida Supreme Court’s Boston decision has received criticism. Even though the Court correctly noted that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is technically a more demanding burden of proof than “clear and convincing evidence,” some argued judges may find a lack of clear and convincing evidence in cases where jurors may find a lack of reasonable doubt. 

Thus, there may be cases where charges would have been dismissed at the pretrial immunity phase if the burden was properly applied – but the defendant went to trial and was convicted. Both differential application of the burden(s) of proof by judges and juries, and potential changes in a defendant’s trial strategy after losing at the pretrial hearing, could lead to such an outcome.

Years after the Boston decision, this is less likely to be an issue at Stand Your Ground hearings. This is because judges across the State are aware of the nearly decade-old updates to Stand Your Ground. Thus, they are unlikely to apply the pre-2017 version of the law, requiring the defendant to prove lawful use of force by a preponderance of the evidence.

But it is essential that if the court attempts to place such a burden on the defendant at the pretrial immunity hearing, that an experienced and aggressive defense attorney object. If a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing erroneously proceeds with the burden of proof on the defendant, but the defendant is ultimately found guilty at trial, Boston says you’re OUT OF LUCK.

Understanding the myths and facts about Stand Your Ground law in Florida is crucial when evaluating whether this is a potentially viable defense in response to a criminal charge. If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and wishes to assert a Stand Your Ground defense, it is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share