State v. Brown
1994 WL 164704, 640 So.2d 488 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant asserts self-defense in a homicide case, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justified. A homicide is justifiable self-defense if the defendant reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to prevent it.
Facts:
- Amos Terrell Brown, carrying a concealed handgun for protection, was out with friends Michael Nash and Brian Johnson.
- Earlier in the evening, Nash had been in a fight with the victim, Rendrick Brooks, which Brown was not a party to.
- Later, Brooks and his group, the "Square Boys," saw Brown's group walking past the Satellite Kitchen.
- Brooks declared he wanted to fight Nash, and members of the Square Boys armed themselves with sticks.
- The Square Boys, numbering between 7 and 16 individuals, pursued Brown's much smaller group for over 100 yards to a basketball court.
- At the court, the Square Boys surrounded Brown and his two remaining friends, yelling at them for being on their "turf."
- The Square Boys, armed with sticks, began beating Brown and his friend Johnson.
- After being struck on the arm and the back of the head, Brown pulled out his gun and fired a single shot, which struck Brooks in the back of the head and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Amos Terrell Brown was charged with second degree murder in a Louisiana state trial court.
- A jury convicted Brown of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
- Following the verdict, Brown's counsel filed a motion for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
- The trial judge granted the motion and entered a judgment of acquittal.
- The State of Louisiana, as appellant, appealed the trial judge's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with Brown as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Amos Terrell Brown, did not act in self-defense when he shot and killed the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, Judge
No. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The court reasoned that the State carries the entire burden to disprove self-defense once the issue is raised. First, the evidence clearly showed that the defendant was not the aggressor; rather, the victim and his armed companions pursued the defendant's group, who were attempting to retreat. Second, the court evaluated whether the defendant's belief that he was in imminent danger was reasonable. Considering that the defendant was cornered, far outnumbered by an armed group, and was being actively beaten with sticks after having retreated approximately 160 yards, his subjective belief that deadly force was necessary to save himself from great bodily harm was reasonable. Therefore, no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court's post-verdict judgment of acquittal was proper.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle that the burden of disproving self-defense rests entirely with the prosecution. The court's decision to uphold a trial judge's acquittal over a jury's manslaughter conviction highlights the judiciary's role as a check on jury verdicts that are not supported by sufficient evidence. It establishes that a defendant's subjective belief of imminent danger must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, including disparity in numbers, the presence of weapons, and the defendant's attempts to withdraw from the conflict. This ruling provides a clear framework for analyzing self-defense claims where a defendant is pursued and attacked by a group.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Brown