State v. Baker
962 So. 2d 1198, 2007 WL 2323365 (2007)
Rule of Law:
To reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be objectively sufficient to deprive an average person of self-control and cool reflection, and specific intent to kill required for second-degree murder can be inferred from circumstances such as a defendant's actions leading up to the event and the deliberate use of a deadly weapon at close range.
Facts:
- In November 2003, Barry Baker and his wife, Melanie Baker, were physically separated and experiencing marital problems.
- On November 15, after his car broke down, Barry Baker borrowed a Pontiac Grand Am from his aunt, Sarah Baker.
- Barry Baker spent a significant part of the day driving around, searching for Melanie, and made two phone calls looking for her.
- Barry Baker spotted Melanie driving a maroon Mustang, which belonged to Paul Kingsby, with their six-year-old son Matthew and two other passengers.
- Barry Baker pursued Melanie's Mustang, swerved his Grand Am diagonally in front of it to block her, and then confronted Melanie with a handgun at the driver's door.
- Barry Baker accused Melanie of 'playing games' with him, stated he was giving her all his money, and declared he was going to kill her.
- Despite his son Matthew screaming, 'Don't do it!', Barry Baker shot Melanie twice at close range, once in the chest and once in the head, causing her death.
- After the shooting, Barry Baker told Matthew, 'I'm sorry, boy, sorry I did it,' and later told his aunt to call 911 because Melanie was dead, also confessing to a neighbor that he shot her.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry Baker was indicted for the second-degree murder of Melanie Baker and for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- The two counts were severed, meaning they were tried separately.
- Barry Baker proceeded to a jury trial on the homicide charge in November 2005.
- The jury, by an 11-1 vote, found Barry Baker guilty as charged of second-degree murder.
- The trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence without benefits.
- Barry Baker appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, arguing that the evidence supported only a verdict of manslaughter.
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 the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficiently establish Barry Baker's specific intent to kill, rather than sudden passion or heat of blood, to sustain his conviction for second-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
Yes, the evidence sufficiently establishes Barry Baker's specific intent to kill, rather than sudden passion or heat of blood, to sustain his conviction for second-degree murder. The court applied the 'Jackson v. Virginia' standard, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and found that a rational jury could have concluded Baker had specific intent to kill. The defense argued for a manslaughter conviction, claiming Baker acted in 'sudden passion' upon seeing Melanie in another man's car. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support this, noting that Baker had been searching for Melanie earlier, drove around with a concealed handgun, pursued her aggressively, blocked her car, and made statements indicating an intent to kill before firing. These actions, combined with deliberately firing a deadly weapon at close range, strongly suggest a pre-formed plan rather than a spontaneous reaction caused by sufficient provocation. The court explicitly stated that seeing an estranged wife with another man is often insufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter and that an 'average person' would not fly into such a rage under these circumstances. Therefore, the jury was reasonable in rejecting the manslaughter theory.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for reducing a murder charge to manslaughter based on 'sudden passion' or 'heat of blood.' It demonstrates that specific intent to kill can be inferred from a defendant's calculated actions, prior statements, and the circumstances leading to the killing, even in the absence of direct testimony about their mental state. The ruling reinforces that mere jealousy or anger, especially when the actions appear planned or deliberate, does not automatically constitute the legally sufficient provocation required for manslaughter. This precedent guides future courts in distinguishing intentional killings from those committed in a heat of passion that objectively deprives an average person of self-control.
