hmmm.... from 1997 until now if you shot someone in self defense you had to prove your were innocent. well this law changes that and your no longer assumed guilty! Original Article Napolitano signs bill bolstering self defense rights Associated Press Apr. 24, 2006 02:35 PM Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday signed a bill to strengthen Arizonans' rights to claim self-defense and to use force against intruders. The bill (SB1145) was supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by prosecutors. It scraps a 1990s state law by imposing a new burden of proof on prosecutors to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's self-defense claim was unfounded. It also implants in Arizona law the so-called "castle doctrine" that gives a person the right to use force in a home or vehicle against an intruder without having to retreat. The self-defense portion of the bill stirred the most controversy. Supporters argued that the current law, written in 1997, unfairly requires a person to effectively admit to a crime and then prove they had justification. Opponents contended the bill opens the door for abuses in which one of the only two people involved in a violent incident is dead and can't appear in court to refute a self-defense claim. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0425self-defense0425.html New law bolsters self-defense rights Matthew Benson The Arizona Republic Apr. 25, 2006 12:00 AM A measure signed into law Monday by Gov. Janet Napolitano strengthens the rights of Arizonans to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes or vehicles. Advocates called Senate Bill 1145 a self-defense measure aimed at safeguarding the rights of victims. They argued that existing law unfairly puts people claiming self-defense at a disadvantage by requiring them to essentially admit the act but prove they had a justification for it. But prosecutors largely opposed the bill, and Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix, called it unnecessary. Miranda said it could create new victims in some cases. Critics said a person might get away with murder in a household dispute, for example, because the victim wouldn't be around to defend himself or explain why he was in the home. The new law shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution, forcing it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual had not acted in self-defense. SB 1145 replaces a 1997 law that required individuals who said they acted in self-defense to prove their claim, a prospect that National Rifle Association lobbyist Darren LaSorte called "contrary to the American way." Miranda, who voted against the bill, said it "sounds good" but is flawed. In situations where there were no witnesses to a confrontation and one of the individuals was killed, it could prove impossible for prosecutors to determine whether an act was self-defense or something more sinister. "The problems that are associated with (the bill) are not obvious," Miranda said, "but they'll surface eventually." Prosecutors contended the self-defense justification part of the bill opens the door for abuses. "Every trial will become a challenge as the prosecutor has to find evidence that each of an infinite number of possible scenarios which would create justification didn't happen," La Paz County Attorney Martin Brannan wrote lawmakers in an e-mail last month. "Modifying Arizona's justification defenses will not protect the law-abiding but will rather have the effect of protecting those least worthy of protection." Napolitano received approximately 1,200 e-mails on the bill, the vast majority urging her to sign it, spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said. Dozens of e-mails reviewed by the Associated Press under an open-records request found some urging a veto on grounds that it would make it harder to prosecute domestic violence cases. However, most of the e-mails urged her to sign the bill, with many saying the 1997 law was fundamentally unfair and expressing concern about self-defense claimants potentially losing their liberty or having to mount a costly legal defense. "If I have to protect my family in my home or car, I don't want to have to go broke proving my innocence," Patrick Mehall of Tucson wrote in an e-mail to Napolitano. Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier requested a veto, telling Napolitano that he feared the shifted burden of proof would mean that some domestic violence cases won't be prosecuted. Many victims are already reluctant to testify, recant their testimony or bail out their assailants, he wrote in a letter The new law also includes a "castle doctrine" that gives Arizonans authority to use physical or deadly force to protect themselves against intruders if they believe they're "in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury." There is no duty to retreat first. The Arizona measure takes effect immediately. Similar "stand-your-ground" laws are being considered in roughly two dozen states this year. The trend began in Florida last year, where lawmakers passed a measure that strengthened people's rights to defend themselves in their homes, cars or other places they have a right to be. The Associated Press contributed to this article. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/126172 Napolitano OKs eased self-defense Burden of proof in killings shifts to prosecutors By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.25.2006 PHOENIX X Siding with public sentiment over prosecutors, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed legislation Monday to make it easier for those who kill others to argue self-defense. The signing came despite a plea from the association representing Arizona's prosecutors, who urged her to reject the measure because it would put new requirements on them in order to convict those who say they had no choice but to shoot another person. But gubernatorial press aide Jeanine L'Ecuyer said Napolitano received more than 1,200 e-mail messages in the last 24 hours urging her to sign the measure. L'Ecuyer said such an outpouring, by itself, would not be enough to convince the governor to sign bad legislation. But she said Napolitano, a former state and federal prosecutor, concluded the measure would not cause the harm that foes contend it would. "She believes in the fundamental right of self-defense," L'Ecuyer said. "And the law still requires the defendant to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury." There also was a political inevitability of sorts. The measure was approved by the Legislature by wide margins, including near-unanimous Senate consent. L'Ecuyer said the new law simply shifts the burden of proof from the defendant to prove self-defense to the prosecutors. Specifically, it overturns current law, which says that someone who kills another person and claims self-defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was justified. This new law, which takes effect immediately, says once someone claims self-defense, prosecutors have to prove otherwise. It's precisely that shift that Ed Cook, lobbyist for the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, said bothers most county attorneys. "This bill . . . will extend to persons who do not act in self-defense or whose violent behavior is not justified, the ability to assert the legal defense of justification, without credible evidence," he wrote in a letter Friday to the governor. Attorney General Terry Goddard said Monday he, too, has "some difficulties" with the legislation, though Goddard said he never expressed them directly to Napolitano. But Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee, who sponsored the legislation, said the change is merited X and overdue. "In this country we are innocent until proven guilty," said the Tucson Republican. "It's the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the case." Not all prosecutors sought a veto. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas specifically sought its approval. The measure also expands the "castle doctrine," which gives people the right to shoot to kill when their homes are invaded. Current law does spell out that people can use deadly physical force in certain circumstances in defense of life or property. This measure expands that to say that people can kill intruders who unlawfully or forcefully enter a residence or occupied vehicle and the person "reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury." It also says the person has no duty to withdraw in such a situation, even if it is possible. That provision drew objections from Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson. He said there are times where leaving out a back door is preferable to staying and shooting.