State v. Apodaca
2015 WL 5718596, 180 So.3d 465, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 1877 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's specific intent to kill can be inferred from the act of aiming and discharging a firearm at a person at close range, and such evidence can be sufficient to uphold a conviction for attempted murder despite claims of intoxication or an alternative motive like seeking 'suicide by cop'.
Facts:
- During the early morning of January 7, 2012, Ernest J. Apodaca called 911 to report that shots had been fired at his own address.
- When Officer Danny Frasier of the Oak Grove Police Department arrived, Apodaca fired a shotgun at him, striking the officer in the shoulder and hitting his patrol car.
- Shortly thereafter, Apodaca fired at Police Chief Johnny Moss, who was driving by the scene, striking the driver's side of his patrol unit.
- A standoff ensued for several hours, during which Apodaca continued to fire his weapon into the air and threaten the officers.
- After his arrest, Apodaca stated to multiple officers that he had intended to kill them.
- Apodaca claimed at trial that he was intoxicated during the incident and that his true intention was to provoke the officers into fatally shooting him.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest J. Apodaca was charged in the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Carroll, Louisiana, with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated criminal damage to property.
- Apodaca pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Following a sanity hearing, the trial court found Apodaca competent to stand trial.
- A jury unanimously found Apodaca guilty as charged on all counts.
- The trial court sentenced Apodaca to 35 years for each attempted murder count and 5 years for each criminal damage count, to be served concurrently.
- The trial court denied Apodaca's motion to reconsider his sentences.
- Apodaca appealed his convictions and sentences to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 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:
Is the evidence of a defendant aiming and firing a shotgun at two police officers, causing injury to one and damaging both vehicles, sufficient to prove the specific intent required for attempted first-degree murder, despite the defendant's claim of intoxication and a desire to provoke the officers into killing him?
Opinions:
Majority - Lolley, J.
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to prove specific intent for attempted first-degree murder. Specific intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant. The act of discharging a firearm at close range while aimed at a person is indicative of a specific intent to kill. In this case, Apodaca's actions of pointing and firing a shotgun directly at Officer Frasier and Chief Moss, combined with his subsequent statements that he intended to kill them, provided a sufficient basis for a rational jury to find he possessed the requisite specific intent. Although voluntary intoxication can be a defense to a specific intent crime, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the intoxication precluded the formation of intent. Here, Apodaca failed to present evidence of the level of his intoxication, and his ability to formulate and execute a plan undermined his defense, allowing the jury to reasonably conclude he possessed the specific intent to kill.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the principle that specific intent is a question of fact for the jury, which can be established through circumstantial evidence. The court grants significant deference to the jury's evaluation of a defendant's actions and credibility over their self-serving claims about their mental state. It reinforces the high standard for the voluntary intoxication defense, requiring the defendant to show not just that they were intoxicated, but that the intoxication was so severe it rendered them incapable of forming the required intent. This case solidifies that a defendant's objective actions, such as aiming and firing a weapon at police, will often be treated as conclusive evidence of intent, outweighing subjective claims of alternative motives.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Apodaca