State v. Blache
480 So. 2d 304 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a subsequent prosecution when an ultimate issue of fact, such as justification, has already been determined in the defendant's favor by a valid and final judgment in a prior trial. Furthermore, justification can serve as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon if the felon takes possession of the weapon only when in imminent peril and for no longer than is necessary for self-defense or defense of others.
Facts:
- Mark Louis Blache, a convicted felon on probation, was sitting on the porch of his father's home with a friend, Robert McCelus.
- An argument ensued between Blache and three neighborhood youths on bicycles.
- The youths left, returned with two more individuals, and a physical fight broke out.
- During the altercation, one of the youths struck Blache in the head with a blunt instrument, causing severe trauma.
- Simultaneously, another youth tackled McCelus and wrestled him to the ground.
- Blache, staggering from the blow, went into his father's house, yelling "They are trying to kill me."
- Inside, Blache retrieved his brother-in-law's loaded shotgun from a hall closet.
- Blache emerged from the house and fired the shotgun three times at the youths as they began to run away.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Mark Louis Blache by bill of information with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and attempted second degree murder.
- The charges were severed for separate trials.
- In the first proceeding, a twelve-person jury in the trial court found Blache not guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Blache then filed a motion to quash the bill of information on the attempted murder charge, which the trial court denied.
- Following a bench trial before a different judge, Blache was found guilty of the lesser included offense of aggravated battery.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of confinement.
- Blache (as appellant) appealed to the court of appeal, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ application filed by Blache (as applicant) to review the decision.
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 doctrine of collateral estoppel bar the state from prosecuting a defendant for attempted second degree murder after a jury has acquitted the same defendant of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, where the sole contested issue in the first trial was whether the defendant's possession and use of the firearm were justified?
Opinions:
Majority - Calogero, J.
Yes. The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the subsequent prosecution for attempted second degree murder. Collateral estoppel, as defined in Ashe v. Swenson, provides that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties. To apply this, a court must examine the record of the prior proceeding to determine what issue a rational jury must have decided. In Blache's first trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the parties stipulated that he was a felon and that he possessed the shotgun. Therefore, the sole contested issue was whether his possession was justified by self-defense or defense of another, on which the jury was instructed. The jury's acquittal necessarily means it resolved this ultimate issue of fact in Blache's favor, finding his actions were justified. For the first time, this court holds that justification is a valid, though limited, defense to a felon-in-possession charge, applicable only when a felon is in imminent peril and possesses the weapon for no longer than necessary. Because the jury in the first trial already decided the issue of justification, the state was barred from relitigating that same issue in the second trial for a crime arising from the same conduct.
Dissenting - Marcus, J.
No. Collateral estoppel does not bar the prosecution of the second degree murder charge. The issue of ultimate fact in the first prosecution was different from the issue in the second. The first trial determined whether the defendant was justified in possessing a firearm. The second trial concerned whether the defendant was justified in shooting at his attackers. Because these are distinct issues, the acquittal in the first case should not prevent the state from litigating the separate issue of justified use of force in the second case.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing in Louisiana that justification (self-defense/defense of others) can be a valid defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. However, the court strictly limited this defense to situations of imminent peril and temporary possession, clarifying that it does not grant felons a right to own or generally possess firearms for protection. The decision also provides a strong affirmation of the collateral estoppel doctrine from Ashe v. Swenson in Louisiana criminal law, demonstrating how an acquittal on a lesser charge can entirely preclude prosecution on a more serious charge if a dispositive factual issue, like justification, overlaps and was necessarily decided in the first trial.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Blache