State v. Headley
2001 W. Va. LEXIS 149, 210 W. Va. 524, 558 S.E.2d 324 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a defendant introduces sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt that a killing resulted from self-defense, the prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Facts:
- Francis M. Headley and Brian M. Evans lived together and had a documented history of domestic violence, with at least four prior incidents where Evans was the aggressor.
- On October 6, 1998, after both had been drinking, Evans and Headley argued over money.
- The argument escalated, and Evans, who outweighed Headley by over 100 pounds, wrestled her to the ground and repeatedly punched her in the face and head, breaking her nose.
- Headley attempted to escape but could not reach the door, so she retreated into the kitchen and armed herself with a knife.
- She warned Evans to stay away, but he told her he was not afraid and advanced toward her, pushing her.
- As Evans continued his attack, Headley stabbed him once.
- After being stabbed, Evans ripped the telephone from the wall to prevent Headley from calling for help and struck her with it before he collapsed.
- Evans died from his stab wound on October 28, 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- Francis M. Headley was indicted for murder following the death of Brian M. Evans.
- At her trial in the Circuit Court of Wood County, the trial judge ruled that Headley could not present evidence, testimony, or jury instructions related to her theory of self-defense.
- The jury found Headley guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced Headley to one year in jail and ordered her to pay restitution.
- Headley, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to this Court.
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 Headley did not act in self-defense after she produced evidence that she acted to protect herself from imminent, serious bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No. The State failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Headley did not act in self-defense. The uncontroverted evidence showed that Headley was not the aggressor and had reasonable grounds to believe she was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm from Evans's violent attack, justifying her use of deadly force. The court found that because the State offered no evidence to contradict Headley's version of events, it failed to meet the evidentiary burden that shifts to the prosecution once a defendant raises a credible claim of self-defense. Therefore, Headley's act of stabbing Evans was a complete justification for the homicide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental legal principle of burden-shifting in self-defense cases, particularly within the context of domestic violence. It establishes that once a defendant presents credible evidence of self-defense, the burden is squarely on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's strong criticism of the trial court's refusal to allow self-defense evidence and instructions serves as a significant precedent, ensuring that defendants have the right to present their theory of the case to the jury. This strengthens the role of the jury as the ultimate arbiter of fact on the question of self-defense.
