Skip to main content

View Diary: Were the clothes of Trayvon Martin's killer examined for fluids, including blood and semen? (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think I understand the confusion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li

    The part that you quoted was not the holding of the case. This is the actual holding:

    When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So.3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction. Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424, 427 (FL Ct. App. 2011)
    The whole point that the Montijo court was making, in other words, was simply that a defendant does not bear the a beyond reasonable doubt standard to make an effective self-defense claim. The jury instruction at the trial level said that Montijo did; the appellate court here ruled that to do so was a fundamental error (i.e., one so grievous that it didn't matter that the defense didn't make a timely objection during the trial).

    The appellate court was in no way, shape, or form saying that the facts behind the self-defense claim in Montijo's example were to now be regarded as the standard against which self-defense claims must be compared. The only point they made was what I wrote above: a defendant only needs to present reasonable evidence that he or she acted in self-defense, not nigh incontrovertible evidence.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site