State v. Howard
1993 WL 394575, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 2968, 624 So.2d 1277 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for aggravated battery requires proof that the defendant intentionally inflicted force or violence upon the victim with a dangerous weapon; an accidental discharge of a weapon during an intentional but separate physical act does not satisfy the statute's intent requirement.
Facts:
- Jim A. Howard, Jr., was searching for his live-in girlfriend, Chana Simmons, who was a passenger in a Chevrolet Blazer with three other people.
- Howard located the Blazer, pursued it, and forced it to pull over by waving a gun at the driver.
- After the vehicles stopped, Howard exited his car with his pistol.
- Howard confronted the other passengers, sticking the gun in one person's face and against another's head to prevent them from interfering.
- He then seized Chana Simmons and attempted to forcibly drag her from the vehicle.
- During this struggle, as Simmons resisted, the pistol discharged, and the bullet struck her in the neck and shoulder area.
Procedural Posture:
- Jim A. Howard, Jr. was charged with aggravated battery in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a trial, a unanimous six-person jury found Howard guilty of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced Howard to serve sixty months at hard labor.
- Howard, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third 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:
Is the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated battery when the defendant intentionally used force on a victim by grabbing them, but the discharge of the firearm that caused the injury was accidental?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodard, Judge.
No. The evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction because the state failed to prove all the essential elements of aggravated battery. Aggravated battery requires that the intentional force or violence be inflicted with a dangerous weapon. In this case, the intentional force was Howard grabbing Simmons by the shoulders, an act not performed with the weapon. The force that was inflicted by the dangerous weapon—the gunshot—was accidental. Because the intentional act (grabbing) and the force inflicted by the weapon (the shooting) were two separate things, the state failed to prove that Howard intentionally used force with the weapon, which is a required element of the crime.
Dissenting - Domengeaux, C.J.
Yes. The dissenter believed the conviction should have been affirmed, but provided no written reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the intent element for aggravated battery, requiring a direct connection between the defendant's specific intent and the use of the weapon to inflict force. It clarifies that the mens rea (criminal intent) must correspond directly to the actus reus (the criminal act) of using the weapon to cause harm. The ruling narrows the scope of the aggravated battery statute, preventing it from applying to situations where a weapon is merely present or accidentally discharges during a separate, albeit intentional, physical altercation. This creates a higher burden for prosecutors, who must now prove not just general intent to use force, but specific intent to inflict force with the weapon itself.
