law post re: Arizona self-defense
Self-defense now exists in Arizona again. For the first time in 9 years.
The law used to be that the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, if the defendant raised the issue. Then in 1997, the legislature acted under pressure from the police-prosecutor lobby to shift the burden of proof for justification defenses onto the defendant. Even though burden of proof is a procedural issue, somehow the state Supreme Court decided that this didn't violate substantive due process and allowed the law to stand.
Liberal defense lawyers teamed up with the NRA to coordinate a sponsorship of a change in the law to put that burden of proof back on the prosecution. The state Senate passed the legislation by a 28-0 vote, and the state House passed it by 41-15. Seeing the vote totals, Governor Napolitano signed the bill. It included an emergency clause which put the law into effect the day it was signed (instead of the customary 180-day waiting period).
The question now is whether the law applies to cases currently pending trial where the act occurred prior to the passage of the law. Superior Courts in Coconino and Pima and other counties have ruled that it doesn't. Both divisions of the Court of Appeals approved cases for special action review, and Division 2 in Tucson will be hearing the issue on June 14.
It's typical of prosecutors and gun grabbers to refer to this as a return to the Wild West or to say that this legislation benefits gangbangers in a shootout. But I've personally seen the old law used against good citizens who were the real victims but were prosecuted anyway because of the anti-gun policies of the County Attorney's Office. This law gives no additional substantive rights to law-abiding citizens who are protecting themselves, but it does place procedural deterrents against overzealous prosecutors.
The law used to be that the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, if the defendant raised the issue. Then in 1997, the legislature acted under pressure from the police-prosecutor lobby to shift the burden of proof for justification defenses onto the defendant. Even though burden of proof is a procedural issue, somehow the state Supreme Court decided that this didn't violate substantive due process and allowed the law to stand.
Liberal defense lawyers teamed up with the NRA to coordinate a sponsorship of a change in the law to put that burden of proof back on the prosecution. The state Senate passed the legislation by a 28-0 vote, and the state House passed it by 41-15. Seeing the vote totals, Governor Napolitano signed the bill. It included an emergency clause which put the law into effect the day it was signed (instead of the customary 180-day waiting period).
The question now is whether the law applies to cases currently pending trial where the act occurred prior to the passage of the law. Superior Courts in Coconino and Pima and other counties have ruled that it doesn't. Both divisions of the Court of Appeals approved cases for special action review, and Division 2 in Tucson will be hearing the issue on June 14.
It's typical of prosecutors and gun grabbers to refer to this as a return to the Wild West or to say that this legislation benefits gangbangers in a shootout. But I've personally seen the old law used against good citizens who were the real victims but were prosecuted anyway because of the anti-gun policies of the County Attorney's Office. This law gives no additional substantive rights to law-abiding citizens who are protecting themselves, but it does place procedural deterrents against overzealous prosecutors.