State v. Gonday
442 So. 2d 703 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who initiates a non-deadly confrontation does not forfeit the right to use deadly force in defense of another if the victim's response is an unreasonable and disproportionate escalation of the conflict to one of deadly force.
Facts:
- Homer Martin, III, struck a truck driven by Roger Gonday and did not stop after the accident.
- Gonday pursued Martin and forced him to stop his truck in a parking lot.
- Gonday's passenger, Russell Williams, approached Martin's truck on foot while Gonday stood by his own truck holding a shotgun.
- Gonday instructed Williams to get Martin's keys to prevent him from leaving before the police arrived.
- In response to the demand for his keys, Martin stated "no one's getting my keys" and reached into his glove compartment for his own gun.
- Martin retrieved his handgun and cocked it.
- Upon seeing Martin with a cocked gun pointed in the direction of the unarmed Williams, Gonday approached and shot Martin.
- Evidence indicated that Martin had attempted to fire his gun, but it had jammed.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger Gonday was charged by a grand jury indictment with manslaughter.
- Gonday pled not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial, proceeding with a bench trial.
- The trial court found Gonday guilty of manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced Gonday to a term of five years plus a consecutive two-year term.
- Gonday (as appellant) appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, arguing the state failed to prove the homicide was not justified.
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 a person who initiates a confrontation by forcing a hit-and-run driver to stop become an 'aggressor' who is precluded from using deadly force in defense of another when the driver unreasonably responds by drawing and cocking a firearm?
Opinions:
Majority - Crain, Judge
No, a person who initiates such a confrontation is not an 'aggressor' precluded from claiming defense of another when the other party unreasonably escalates the situation. The court reasoned that not every act of a defendant makes him an aggressor who forfeits the right of self-defense. The critical determination depends on the character of the defendant's initial act and the reasonableness of the victim's response. Here, Gonday's intent was to detain a hit-and-run driver for the police, a non-deadly confrontation. Martin's response—retrieving and cocking a gun because he did not want to surrender his keys—was an unreasonable and disproportionate escalation. Because Martin's response was unreasonable, Gonday was not precluded by the aggressor doctrine from justifiably using deadly force to protect Williams' life.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the aggressor doctrine by introducing a 'reasonableness of response' limitation. It clarifies that being the initial instigator of a non-deadly conflict does not create a per se bar to claiming self-defense or defense of another. The ruling establishes that the victim's reaction must be a proportional response to the initial aggression; if the victim unreasonably escalates a minor dispute into a deadly one, the initial aggressor may regain the right to use necessary force. This precedent will influence future cases by requiring courts to scrutinize the entire sequence of events and the proportionality of each party's actions, rather than simply identifying who 'started it.'
