In Blalock v. State,[1] the appeals court held that due to absence of clear legislative intent for it to have retroactive effect the “Stand Your Ground” amendment’s changes to self-defense law did not apply retroactively. After conviction for second degree murder, Blalock challenged, inter alia, the refusal of the lower court to instruct the jury on the “Stand Your Ground” amendment as a part his self-defense defense. The trial court found that the “Stand Your Ground” changes from the 2013 law did not apply retroactively to the 2011 crime. The appeals court reasoned that the 2013 “stand your ground” enactment was a change to the law on the use of deadly force in self-defense, not a clarification, and that such changes apply retroactively only if retroactivity was the clear intent of the legislature. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the lower court, explaining that the legislature did not set out an applicability provision and, therefore did not make an explicit statement that the legislation was to apply retroactively. Affirming the lower court, the appeals court held that due to absence of clear legislative intent for it to have retroactive effect the “Stand Your Ground” amendment’s changes to self-defense law did not apply retroactively.
[1] P.3d 675 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
