Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” Law and What It Means for Defendants Who Claim Self-Defense

Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” Law and What It Means for Defendants Who Claim Self-Defense

Since the mid-2000s, “Stand Your Ground” laws have proliferated across the country, in large part due to political action campaigns run by the National Rifle Association. About half of the states have enacted these laws, starting with Florida in 2005. Arizona followed suit in 2006.

Prior to 2006, Arizona law permitted the use of force for self-defense, and the use of deadly force when a person’s life was in danger. However, a self-defense claim could be defeated at trial if the defendant had the ability to retreat, did not and then used violent or deadly force. Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” laws eliminated this duty to retreat.

Prior to “Stand Your Ground”, prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the violent act, but it was up to the defense to demonstrate how self-defense applies. Now the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not self-defense.

This is a huge distinction. Prior to 2006, it was harder to assert self-defense successfully because the law did not assume self-defense applied unless the state could prove otherwise. Now, in cases where there is limited evidence, such as when one person kills another with no witnesses, the state may find it impossible to prove it was not self-defense because there is no one to contradict the defendant’s version of events.

The David Appleton Case

David Appleton is a Phoenix defense attorney who was in the habit of keeping a .38 Special in his glove compartment. According to Appleton, while on his way home one evening, he attempted to catch a green light before it changed but was prevented because Tom Pearson’s pickup truck got in the way. Pearson became upset because he thought Appleton had tried to run a red light, so he tailed Appleton’s vehicle for several miles.

According to Appleton, he pulled into a Scottsdale CVS parking lot in an attempt to placate the man who was following him. When Pearson followed his vehicle into the parking lot, Appleton stopped, removed his .38 from the glove compartment and placed it on the passenger seat.

Pearson exited his vehicle and approached Appleton’s car. Appleton grabbed his weapon and held it in his left hand beside his door. He admits he concealed the weapon from Pearson. The two men exchanged angry words through Appleton’s open driver’s side window.

Appleton claims Pearson became so enraged that he reached into Appleton’s car, assaulted him and attempted to murder him with manual strangulation. Appleton pointed the gun at Pearson. Appleton asserts Pearson responded to this by saying, “Don’t shoot me with that gun,” and strangling him even harder. Despite this, Appleton says he was starting to lose consciousness, so he shot Pearson in the chest, killing him.

No eyewitnesses were present. Pearson was on the phone with his cousin at the time, who heard the argument and a scuffle before the line went dead.

The Maricopa District Attorney’s office brought the case to a grand jury, charging Appleton with 2nd degree murder. However, the state’s case was a difficult one to prove because of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Since there were no other witnesses, it was difficult to challenge Appleton’s presumption of self-defense claim.

In addition, under “Stand Your Ground”, Appleton had no duty to retreat. Before 2006, it could have been argued that Appleton bore criminal liability because he was in a running vehicle and could simply have driven away. Even if Pearson reached in his vehicle and assaulted or strangled him, all he had to do was drive forward and Pearson’s arms would be forced out of the vehicle.

Under “Stand Your Ground”, Appleton was legally entitled to use his gun in self-defense despite participating in the heated argument, keeping his vehicle stationary and doing nothing to deescalate the situation, provided he had a reasonable belief he was in danger of being killed or suffering major bodily harm.

Appleton’s defense was also bolstered by the “Stand Your Ground” law’s expansion of the castle doctrine. Originally, castle doctrines protected citizens right of self-defense when in their homes. Provided they had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, they could use force or the threat of force to protect themselves, including deadly force. The castle doctrine also puts the burden on the state to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense. However, before “Stand Your Ground”, the castle doctrine did not apply to vehicles.

Now drivers have the same self-defense rights as they do in their homes. The legal presumption of self-defense stands if someone accesses or attempts to access their vehicle while they are inside. Since Appleton asserts Pearson tried to enter the vehicle to attack him, he had the same right to use his weapon as he would have in his residence.

The grand jury declined to indite Appleton because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appleton did not act in self defense according to the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Important Exceptions to the Right to Use Physical Force in Self-Defense

The “Stand my Ground” law states that a person can threaten or use physical force when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe such force is immediately necessary to defend against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force against himself or others.

In many cases, the details of the altercation determine if use of force was legal and proportionate. Under “Stand Your Ground”, if you are attacked by a person throwing punches at you, you do not have to run away or take the blows. Shoving the person away, kicking, hitting back or spraying mace can all be considered reasonable ways to defend yourself against such an attack. However, grabbing a tire iron and beating someone over the head because he or she shoved you would likely lead to an assault charge.

In some circumstances, the law automatically prohibits use of force. Force is illegal in the following circumstances:

• It is in response to verbal provocation alone
• It is to resist arrest by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction
• If you provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless you withdrawal from the encounter or clearly communicate your intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or continues to attempt to use unlawful physical force against you

When is Deadly Force Justified?

According to Arizona law, a person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another when and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force

A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act

“Stand Your Ground” laws remain controversial. They can be a great help to defendants who have been forced to defend themselves against vicious attackers. However, some point out that criminals can misuse these laws to claim an assault was self-defense. In Maricopa County, the state’s attorney’s office guards against this through a committee of prosecutors that carefully assess self-defense claims to identify when the law is being abused. Prosecutors elect to pursue criminal charges in most cases where self-defense is alleged.