State v. Ingram
2011 WL 2463087, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 820, 71 So.3d 437 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory presumption that a person's use of deadly force against an unlawful and forcible intruder in their dwelling is reasonable is a rebuttable presumption. The State may overcome this presumption by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was, in fact, unreasonable and disproportionate to the threat posed under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Bobby Ray Ingram and his ex-wife, Kimberly 'Kim' Ingram, were in a dispute over their community property settlement.
- On the afternoon of October 18, 2006, after receiving a letter from Kim's attorney that angered him, Bobby Ray Ingram was at his home with his current wife, Nancy.
- Kim Ingram drove her car into Ingram's front yard, stopped near the front door, and entered the home uninvited.
- Inside the home, Kim and Nancy Ingram became engaged in a physical brawl on the floor by the front door.
- During the scuffle, Bobby Ray Ingram retrieved his hunting rifle.
- Ingram knew that Kim was unarmed.
- Ingram shot and killed the unarmed Kim with the high-powered rifle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Bobby Ray Ingram with second degree murder in the 26th Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster.
- Ingram's first trial ended in a mistrial.
- Following a second trial, a jury convicted Ingram of the lesser included offense of manslaughter by a 10-2 vote.
- The trial court denied Ingram's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 28 years' imprisonment at hard labor.
- The trial court denied Ingram's motion to reconsider his sentence.
- Ingram (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal initially remanded the case to the trial court on a procedural issue concerning a juror.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal for consideration of Ingram's remaining arguments.
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 the statutory presumption that a homeowner's use of deadly force against an unlawful intruder is reasonable (La. R.S. 14:20(B)) create an irrebuttable defense, or can the State overcome this presumption by proving the homeowner's belief was unreasonable under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Lolley, J.
No. The statutory presumption that a homeowner's use of deadly force against an unlawful intruder is reasonable is a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute defense. The State can overcome this presumption by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the specific circumstances. The court reasoned that the legislature's use of the word 'presumption' in La. R.S. 14:20(B) does not create a mandatory, irrebuttable defense but rather a rule of evidence that shifts the burden of proof. While the law recognizes the difficult, fast-moving nature of home invasions, the presumption of reasonableness is not a 'license to kill.' The State is entitled to present evidence to show the force used was unreasonable. Here, the State successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that Ingram responded to an unarmed assault by his smaller ex-wife with 'grossly disproportionate force.' Evidence supporting this conclusion included Ingram's knowledge that the victim was unarmed, the use of a high-powered rifle against a person engaged in a fistfight, and expert testimony suggesting the victim was in a defensive position when shot. The court affirmed that while the law eliminates the duty to retreat, it still requires the defensive force to be proportional to the threat.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Louisiana's justifiable homicide and 'castle doctrine' statute, establishing that the presumption of reasonableness afforded to a homeowner is not absolute. The ruling confirms that juries can, and should, evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine if the use of deadly force was genuinely necessary and proportional, even when an unlawful entry occurs. It prevents the statute from being interpreted as a 'license to kill' and maintains judicial oversight on self-defense claims, ensuring that a homeowner's response is commensurate with the threat. This precedent reinforces the principle that reasonableness is the ultimate standard, even within the protected space of one's home.
