State v. Fluker
618 So. 2d 459, 1993 WL 132435 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a non-homicide criminal case where the defendant claims justification, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Facts:
- Sam Fluker and his former neighbor, Arthur Thomas, had a history of conflict, which included a prior physical altercation where Thomas choked Fluker.
- On November 30, 1988, Thomas went to Fluker's residence to retrieve hubcaps he had previously lent to him.
- Thomas, accompanied by James Aaron, removed the hubcaps from Fluker's truck and placed them in his own car.
- As Thomas was getting back into his car to leave, Fluker emerged with a .22 rifle and began shooting.
- Fluker fired multiple times, hitting Thomas's car and striking Thomas in the shoulder and abdomen, causing a serious injury.
- Thomas took cover behind his car in a crouched position before he was shot.
- Believing the gun was either jammed or out of ammunition, Thomas charged at Fluker, and a struggle over the weapon ensued.
- Fluker fled the scene but later returned and surrendered to the police.
Procedural Posture:
- Sam Fluker was charged by bill of information with attempted second degree murder in the trial court.
- Fluker pleaded not guilty and was tried by a twelve-person jury.
- The jury in the trial court found Fluker guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Fluker to fifteen years at hard labor.
- Fluker (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, arguing insufficiency of the evidence against the State (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 present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sam Fluker had the specific intent to kill Arthur Thomas and did not act in self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Waltzer, J.
Yes. The State presented sufficient evidence to prove both specific intent to kill and the absence of justification for the shooting. First, addressing a split among Louisiana's circuit courts, this court holds that in a non-homicide case, the State, not the defendant, bears the burden of disproving a claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is based on the constitutional principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Applying this standard, the State met its burden because Fluker was the aggressor; Thomas was attempting to leave the scene and posed no immediate threat that would justify the use of deadly force. The claim of defense of property fails as the hubcaps had already been retrieved. Second, specific intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances. Fluker's actions of aiming and firing a rifle multiple times at Thomas, even while Thomas was crouched behind his car, are sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that he actively desired to kill Thomas, thereby satisfying the elements for attempted second degree murder.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying the burden of proof for self-defense in non-homicide cases within Louisiana's Fourth Circuit. By placing the burden on the State to disprove justification, the court rejected the approach of other circuits that required the defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This holding aligns the standard for non-homicide cases with that of homicide cases, promoting a more consistent and constitutionally grounded application of criminal law based on the presumption of innocence. The ruling creates a circuit split that may prompt the Louisiana Supreme Court to establish a uniform statewide rule.
