State v. Dill
461 So. 2d 1130 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of self-defense can be deemed "imperfect," failing to fully justify a homicide, but providing sufficient provocation to mitigate a murder charge to manslaughter if the defendant's belief of imminent danger was reasonable but the use of deadly force was not necessary.
Facts:
- On January 23, 1981, Andrew Lauchlan drove his friend Terry Greenwood to the Miki Lounge.
- Lauchlan's truck would not start due to a low battery, so he waited in the truck while Greenwood went to get help.
- Greenwood approached a car occupied by Robert L. Dill and two other men to ask for a "jump."
- A heated verbal argument began between Greenwood and Dill, apparently over a demand for $5.00 for assistance.
- As the argument escalated, Greenwood walked toward the driver's side of Dill's car.
- Dill simultaneously opened his car door, retrieved a gun from between the seats, exited the vehicle, and pointed the gun at Greenwood.
- Dill shot Greenwood in the head, killing him.
- Dill immediately got back into his car, fled the scene, and was later arrested in Miami, Florida.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Robert L. Dill with first-degree murder.
- At his arraignment in the trial court, Dill entered a plea of not guilty.
- The State amended the indictment to second-degree murder.
- Dill was arraigned again and again pleaded not guilty.
- Dill waived his right to a jury, and a bench trial was held before a judge.
- The trial court found Dill guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter and sentenced him to five years.
- Dill (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, arguing the State (appellee) failed to disprove his claim of self-defense.
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 evidence support a conviction for manslaughter when the defendant argues the killing was a justifiable act of self-defense, but the evidence suggests that while the defendant's fear may have been reasonable, the use of deadly force was not necessary?
Opinions:
Majority - Dufresne, J.
Yes. The evidence supports a manslaughter conviction because while the defendant may have had a reasonable apprehension of harm, his use of deadly force was not necessary, creating an "imperfect" self-defense that mitigates murder to manslaughter. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a homicide was not committed in self-defense. A justifiable homicide requires both a reasonable belief of imminent danger and that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent that danger. Here, given the heated argument and the size disparity between Dill (5'4") and Greenwood (6'0"), the trial court could have found Dill's apprehension of receiving great bodily harm was reasonable. However, the court also found that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Dill was in a car and had the ability to retreat by driving away or rolling up the window; instead, he exited the vehicle to confront Greenwood. Because deadly force was not warranted, the self-defense claim fails as a perfect justification. The provocation from the altercation, however, was sufficient to create a "sudden passion or heat of blood," which acts as a mitigating factor to reduce what would otherwise be second-degree murder to the lesser offense of manslaughter.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its judicial recognition and application of the 'imperfect self-defense' doctrine within Louisiana law. It clarifies that a failed self-defense claim is not an all-or-nothing proposition; it can serve as a mitigatory factor that bridges the gap between a justifiable homicide and murder. The decision establishes that the necessity of the force used is a distinct and critical element from the reasonableness of the defendant's fear. This precedent guides future cases by demonstrating how an excessive or unnecessary response to a perceived threat can result in a manslaughter conviction rather than a murder conviction or a full acquittal.
