A rally of opposition by North Dakota’s state’s attorneys came too late for a House bill that would provide financial reimbursement to assault or murder defendants who are acquitted on self defense.

Ward County State’s Attorney Roza Larson, president of the North Dakota State’s Attorney’s Association, said the association will be working in the North Dakota Senate to defeat the bill, which passed the House 50-40 on Jan. 20.

Larson told the Ward County Commission Tuesday that prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant in a “crime of violence” was not acting in self defense, if that is the defendant’s claim. If anyone on a jury isn’t convinced by the prosecutor’s evidence, the acquitted individual can seek reimbursement of all reasonable costs, including loss of wages and time and attorney’s fees.

The bill could have a chilling effect on bringing charges if there is a concern that self defense will be successfully raised and the county faces reimbursement costs, she said. Currently immunity exists for the prosecution and law enforcement who bring cases for the courts to decide.

“Frankly, that’s what trials are for,” Larson said.

Rep. Nico Rios, R-Williston, who sponsored the bill, advocated for passage on the House floor after the bill received an 8-3 “Do Pass” recommendation in committee.

“Even if the trial ends up in acquittal, the innocent defendant may end up losing in a variety of ways. These cases can last months and even years. This can even cause the loss of jobs, marriages, businesses, homes and, most importantly, a good reputation, from media scrutiny,” Rios said. “We all hope and pray that we never have to use a gun for self defense, but if we ever do, it is reassuring knowing that if we are tried when it is clearly self defense, the court has the ability and the option to help correct the situation.”

Minot legislators Rep. Dan Ruby and Sen. Bob Paulson are among the bill’s co-sponsors. They share similar thoughts on the legislation.

“I agreed to sign onto HB 1213 because the intent of the bill is to protect people from aggressive prosecution in situations where someone needed to use deadly force to defend themselves,” Ruby said. “There have been examples in recent years where someone who had to defend themselves with a gun, whether on the street, in their car or in their own homes, was prosecuted as if they were the criminal who instigated the encounter. HB1213 ensures that if someone is prosecuted for injuring or killing an attacker in self-defense and is acquitted, a judge may award them damages for the cost of their defense.”

The State’s Attorney’s Association did not testify at the hearing on the bill but submitted testimony for representatives to consider before the floor vote. This disturbed some legislators, including Rep. Lawrence Klemin, R-Bismarck.

“I’m concerned about us getting a letter from an organization that doesn’t even want to come into the committee and present testimony as to what they think is the appropriate action on a bill like this and instead seek to have this assembly vote against it simply by arriving late and giving us a letter, which I’m sure does contain a number of things that may be correct and some things that may not be correct,” Klemin said.

Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, cited the example of civil court cases in which a person is sued for using force. If the force is found to be justified, the plaintiff must pay the attorney fees, loss of income and other costs.

“If that is good for a civil suit between two individuals, it should be good for our system. And I don’t know of any other remedy, short of something like this, where somebody can put their life back together if they do prevail,” Koppelman said.

Rep. Shannon Roers Jones, R-Fargo, argued the case of the state’s attorneys. She noted prosecutors must show a defendant is the probable perpetrator of the crime to advance a case to trial. In cases of politically motivated prosecution, existing remedies are in place for defendants, she said.

“This bill is being brought forward in response to an isolated incident outside of North Dakota,” Roers Jones said. “House Bill 1213 is likely to have a great expense to the state and counties of North Dakota and cause cases that otherwise would go to trial to be abandoned in order to solve a political problem that has never been identified in North Dakota.”