Slayton v. McDonald
690 So. 2d 914 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a dangerous weapon to repel an unarmed aggressor may be justified as reasonable self-defense when the actor's fear of serious bodily harm is genuine and founded on facts that would produce similar emotions in a reasonable person, especially when the actor is unable to retreat from an encounter within their own home.
Facts:
- Fourteen-year-old Daniel McDonald and fourteen-year-old James Slayton had a disagreement on a school bus, after which Slayton threatened to go to McDonald's house.
- Slayton, who was physically larger and had a reputation as a fighter, later walked up the driveway to McDonald's home.
- McDonald, who was home alone, yelled at Slayton to leave, then went inside and retrieved a twelve-gauge shotgun.
- Slayton ignored the warnings and entered McDonald's home through an unlocked door.
- Inside the home, while McDonald was on the phone with a 911 operator, Slayton refused repeated demands to leave.
- Slayton dared McDonald to shoot him, threatened to beat him, and advanced further into the home.
- After Slayton counted aloud "one—two—three," McDonald shot him once in the left knee.
- Slayton's sister, who had arrived during the confrontation, had also asked Slayton to leave, but he refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy V. Slayton, on behalf of his son James Slayton, sued A.S. McDonald, on behalf of his son Daniel McDonald, in a Louisiana trial court for personal injury damages.
- A.S. McDonald filed a reconventional demand (a counterclaim) seeking damages for mental anguish.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, A.S. McDonald, rejecting the plaintiff's claim and finding Daniel McDonald acted in reasonable self-defense. The court also rejected the defendant's reconventional demand.
- The plaintiff, Jimmy V. Slayton, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a minor act in reasonable self-defense when using a shotgun to repel a larger, unarmed, but belligerent trespasser who has entered his home, advanced upon him, and refused to leave despite repeated warnings?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Judge
Yes. A person's use of a dangerous weapon against an unarmed attacker is justified if their fear is genuine and based on facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe such force is necessary. Louisiana's aggressor doctrine bars recovery for a plaintiff who provokes the altercation. Here, Slayton was the aggressor by trespassing and refusing to leave despite repeated warnings. The court applied a multi-factor test to determine the reasonableness of McDonald's actions, considering: 1) Slayton's reputation as a fighter and larger size; 2) his belligerence in entering the home and refusing to leave; 3) his overt acts of advancing and threatening McDonald; and 4) McDonald's inability to retreat peacefully within his own home. Given Slayton's continued advance and threats even while McDonald was armed and on the phone with 911, McDonald's fear of serious bodily harm was reasonable. The court gave great deference to the trial court's credibility determinations, which favored McDonald's version of events.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms Louisiana's self-defense principles, particularly within the context of the 'castle doctrine.' It clarifies that the use of a dangerous weapon against an unarmed assailant can be deemed reasonable, shifting the focus from the absence of a weapon to the totality of the circumstances creating a reasonable fear of serious harm. The decision reinforces the high standard of review for factual findings, emphasizing that an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's credibility determinations unless they are manifestly erroneous. This precedent provides a framework for evaluating self-defense claims where there is a significant disparity in size and a clear aggressor who invades a home.
Unlock the full brief for Slayton v. McDonald