State v. Fenner
1995 WL 684813, 664 So.2d 1315 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot defeat a charge of negligent homicide by asserting that the killing was intentional. Furthermore, the State fails to meet its burden of proving a homicide was not justifiable when the evidence presented, particularly witness testimony regarding the critical moments of the event, is so contradictory that a rational trier of fact could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense or defense of others.
Facts:
- New Orleans police officer Kevin Fenner and his partner, Officer Joel Tallant, were dispatched to investigate a report of a possibly armed man, Virgil Braud, selling drugs.
- Upon locating Braud, Fenner frisked him and discovered a film canister containing crack cocaine and marijuana.
- As Fenner attempted to arrest Braud, Braud began to struggle violently.
- Officer Tallant went to assist Fenner, but the two officers were unable to subdue Braud.
- Fenner struck Braud with a collapsible billy club, or 'asp', but Braud grabbed it, leading to a struggle for the weapon.
- Braud and Officer Tallant continued to wrestle, falling to the ground together.
- During the physical struggle on the ground, Fenner testified that he saw Braud attempting to remove Officer Tallant's gun from its holster.
- Fenner then drew his service weapon and fired one shot, which struck Braud in the chest and caused his death.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Kevin Fenner with negligent homicide in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a judge trial, the trial court found Fenner guilty as charged.
- The court sentenced Fenner to a three-year suspended sentence at hard labor with two years of active probation.
- Fenner (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, arguing insufficiency of the evidence and failure to disprove his self-defense claim.
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's shooting of the victim was not a justifiable homicide committed in defense of another, given the numerous and significant contradictions in the witness testimonies?
Opinions:
Majority - Byrnes, J.
No. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of another officer. The court first rejected the defendant's argument that an intentional act cannot constitute criminal negligence, holding that a defendant cannot use evidence of a more serious, intentional crime as a defense to a lesser charge like negligent homicide. However, the court reversed the conviction based on the insufficiency of the evidence to disprove the defendant's justification defense. The State bears the burden of proving that a homicide was not committed in self-defense or defense of others. Here, the witness testimonies were plagued with 'many variations and conflicting testimony' on crucial facts, such as when the defendant drew his gun, the distance from which he fired, and whether the victim was still struggling with the other officer at the moment of the shot. Given these profound inconsistencies, no rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Fenner was not acting justifiably to protect his partner, whom he believed was in imminent danger.
Concurring - Waltzer, J.
No. The State did not disprove the defendant's justification defense of self-defense and defense of others. This opinion concurs fully in the reversal but provides a more extensive analysis of the defendant's argument that an intentional act negates negligence. It clarifies that criminal negligence involves a 'gross disregard' for the safety of others, a standard that can encompass willful and reckless acts that fall short of specific intent to kill. To allow an intentional act to be a defense would permit any defendant charged with negligent homicide to defeat prosecution simply by claiming they intended the result. The primary basis for reversal, however, is the State's failure to meet its burden on the justification issue. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was so contradictory on all critical details that, when measured against the 'exigencies of the split seconds' in which Fenner had to decide how to protect his partner, the State's proof that the shooting was unjustified failed to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.
Analysis:
This case clarifies two key principles in Louisiana criminal law. First, it firmly establishes that a defendant charged with negligent homicide cannot escape liability by arguing their conduct was intentional, thus preventing a paradoxical defense where admitting to a more culpable state of mind exonerates from a lesser charge. Second, it serves as a strong reminder of the State's high burden to disprove a justification defense, demonstrating that a conviction based on deeply conflicting and inconsistent witness testimony on crucial, dispositive facts cannot survive a sufficiency of the evidence challenge. This holding underscores that where the evidence creates reasonable doubt about whether an officer acted justifiably in defense of another, the conviction must be overturned.
