State v. Bright
776 So. 2d 1134, 2000 WL 366295 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a first-degree murder conviction based on an underlying felony of armed robbery, the State must present sufficient evidence to prove the specific intent to commit the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt; purely circumstantial evidence suggesting a motive to rob is insufficient if it fails to exclude other reasonable hypotheses for the killing, such as a personal vendetta.
Facts:
- On January 29, 1995, Murray Barnes won $1,000 in a football pool at Creola's Bar and received his winnings in two envelopes each containing $500.
- Barnes generously tipped the barmaid and bought a round of drinks for his friends.
- After leaving the bar, Barnes and his friends headed to his truck parked across the street.
- As Barnes stood by the driver's door, two men, including Dan L. Bright, emerged from an alley.
- Bright shot Barnes twice in the back and once in the arm without making any audible demand for money or property.
- The two assailants immediately fled in the opposite direction from which the wounded Barnes ran.
- Barnes collapsed inside the bar and died en route to the hospital.
- An investigation found only one of his envelopes, containing $444; the other envelope was missing.
Procedural Posture:
- An Orleans Parish grand jury indicted Dan L. Bright and Christina Davis for first-degree murder.
- On the State's motion, the cases were severed before trial.
- Following a jury trial in the district court, Bright was found guilty of first-degree murder.
- The jury recommended the death penalty.
- The district court denied Bright's motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial.
- The district court formally sentenced Bright to death.
- Bright filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 State's circumstantial evidence, which shows the victim had recently won a large sum of money but includes no evidence of a demand for property or an attempt to take property from the victim, sufficiently prove the specific intent to commit armed robbery required for a first-degree murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Calogero
No. The State's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing occurred during the commission or attempted commission of an armed robbery. The evidence supporting the robbery element was purely circumstantial and required the jury to speculate as to the motive for the attack. Eyewitnesses testified that the assailants made no demand for money or property and did not attempt to take anything from the victim; they simply shot him and immediately fled. Furthermore, the evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the killing was motivated by a personal grudge or that someone other than the assailants took the missing envelope after the victim collapsed in the bar unattended. Because the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding the armed robbery element, the evidence cannot support a conviction for first-degree murder.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high evidentiary burden required to prove an underlying felony in a first-degree murder charge based on circumstantial evidence. The court's decision clarifies that a plausible motive for robbery, such as the victim's known possession of cash, is not a substitute for evidence of the defendant's specific intent to rob, demonstrated through words or actions at the scene. By modifying the verdict to the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, the court utilized its authority under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 821(E) to correct a jury verdict unsupported by the evidence without ordering a complete acquittal. This decision serves as a key precedent on the limits of prosecutorial theories built on speculation and reinforces that circumstantial evidence must foreclose all reasonable alternative explanations to secure a conviction for the most serious offenses.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Bright