State v. Butler
563 So. 2d 976, 1990 WL 75410 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal case, LSA-C.E. art. 704 prohibits an expert witness from expressing an opinion as to the ultimate issue of the accused's guilt or innocence. An expert may opine on a defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong, but may not opine on whether the defendant understood their actions 'in a legal sense,' as this constitutes an impermissible opinion on legal guilt.
Facts:
- Herbert Butler and Michelle Y. Poche were former romantic partners who had a lengthy and contentious relationship.
- At the time of the incident, Butler and Poche had been separated for several months.
- Butler hid a rifle in the shrubbery outside Poche's apartment complex.
- Butler confronted Poche and her companion, Anthony Druilhet, in the parking lot as they walked to her apartment.
- After the confrontation, Butler retrieved the hidden rifle, causing Druilhet to flee on foot.
- Poche entered her car in an apparent attempt to flee.
- Butler shot Poche five times at close range while she was seated in her car.
- Poche died from massive blood loss caused by the gunshot wounds, and Butler fled the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana indicted Herbert Butler for the second-degree murder of Michelle Y. Poche.
- Butler entered a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity in the trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Butler guilty of second-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Butler to the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
- Butler (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, arguing that the trial court made several errors, including improperly excluding expert testimony.
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 LSA-C.E. art. 704, which prohibits an expert from opining on the guilt or innocence of an accused, bar an expert witness from testifying whether a defendant could understand the effects of their actions 'in a legal sense' when pleading insanity?
Opinions:
Majority - Covington, C.J.
Yes, LSA-C.E. art. 704 bars an expert witness from testifying whether a defendant understood their actions 'in a legal sense' because such testimony is an impermissible opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt. The court reasoned that while expert opinion is admissible if it assists the jury in understanding the evidence, it cannot usurp the jury's function. LSA-C.E. art. 704 explicitly forbids an expert in a criminal case from expressing an opinion on the accused's guilt or innocence. Asking an expert if the defendant understood his actions 'in a legal sense' is tantamount to asking for an opinion on whether the defendant was 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' which is a conclusion of law reserved for the jury. The court distinguished this from permissible testimony regarding the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong, which aids the jury without deciding the ultimate legal issue. Therefore, the trial court correctly excluded the defense expert's testimony on this point.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinct roles of expert witnesses and the jury in insanity defense cases. It clarifies the application of LSA-C.E. art. 704 by drawing a fine but critical line: experts can provide foundational opinions on a defendant's mental state (like the ability to distinguish right from wrong), but they cannot offer conclusory opinions on legal outcomes (like whether the defendant was 'legally insane'). This precedent guides legal practitioners on how to frame questions for expert witnesses, ensuring they elicit helpful information for the jury without improperly influencing the ultimate verdict on guilt or innocence. It protects the jury's role as the final arbiter of fact and law.
