State v. Fountain
1994 WL 701254, 647 So.2d 1254 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unintentional homicide committed during the perpetration of an aggravated assault, which is an intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person, constitutes the crime of manslaughter.
Facts:
- Ronald Fountain purchased a loaded .357 magnum revolver about a week before the incident.
- On July 8, 1991, Fountain was with Keith Dudley and two other individuals.
- Fountain began 'playing' with Dudley by pointing the gun at him and demanding that Dudley 'give it up.'
- Fountain did not tell Dudley he was joking.
- Dudley stated he had a thousand dollars worth of crack cocaine on his person.
- While Fountain was swinging the gun in front of Dudley's face with his finger on the trigger, the gun discharged, striking Dudley in the head.
- Dudley died as a result of the gunshot wound.
- Fountain fled the scene and disposed of the weapon.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Fountain was charged with second degree murder by a grand jury indictment.
- Fountain entered a plea of not guilty.
- Following a trial, a twelve-member jury in the trial court found Fountain guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced Fountain to twenty-one years at hard labor.
- Fountain filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Fountain (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
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 pointing a loaded handgun at another person's head while demanding their property, resulting in the gun discharging and killing the person, constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for manslaughter based on the commission of an aggravated assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Ciaccio, J.
Yes. Pointing a loaded handgun at another person's head constitutes an aggravated assault, and an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission of this intentional misdemeanor is sufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter. The State is not required to prove intent to kill, only that the homicide occurred during the commission of an intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person, such as aggravated assault. Fountain's acts of waving a loaded gun at Dudley's head while demanding property intentionally placed Dudley in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery with a dangerous weapon. Expert testimony established that the gun would not discharge without significant trigger pressure, which is circumstantial evidence that rebuts the defendant's hypothesis of a pure accident. Because the corpus delicti was established by the autopsy, Fountain's confession could be used to prove his role as the perpetrator.
Dissenting - Plotkin, J.
This opinion does not dissent from the conviction but argues that the sentence imposed was excessive. The trial judge abused his discretion by imposing the maximum sentence of 21 years on a 16-year-old first offender for a killing the jury found to be unintentional. The dissenter argues that the trial judge's personal belief that the defendant should have been convicted of second-degree murder is an insufficient justification for deviating so severely from the sentencing guidelines. The defendant's youth, cooperation with police, remorse, and the unintentional nature of the crime, as determined by the jury, all mitigate against imposing the maximum possible sentence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Louisiana's felony-manslaughter rule to situations involving an unintentional killing during an underlying misdemeanor. It establishes that aggravated assault serves as a valid predicate offense for a manslaughter conviction, even when the defendant claims the act was a joke or an accident. The court's reliance on circumstantial evidence regarding the firearm's mechanics to rebut the accident defense provides a roadmap for prosecutors in similar cases. The decision reinforces that engaging in inherently dangerous activities, even without intent to kill, can lead to severe criminal liability if a death results.
