State v. Johnston
1944 La. LEXIS 789, 20 So. 2d 741, 207 La. 161 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, an instrumentality, even if functionally inoperative (such as an unloaded firearm), can constitute a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of aggravated assault if, in the manner of its use, it is likely to produce death or great bodily harm by placing victims in reasonable apprehension or inciting dangerous defensive actions. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense for crimes, such as aggravated assault, that require only general criminal intent.
Facts:
- On May 28, 1944, Alexander Johnston, an intoxicated New Orleans police officer, argued and fought with a soldier while drinking at a liquor establishment.
- Johnston pursued the fleeing soldier, running along Broad Street and discharging his police revolver three or four times.
- Johnston forcibly entered the residence of Gilbert Chatagnier at 2652 Ursuline Avenue by breaking the front door's Yale lock.
- Inside the home, Johnston pointed his pistol directly at Mr. and Mrs. Chatagnier, demanding 'his man' and pulling the trigger several times, but the gun only clicked and did not fire.
- Johnston proceeded through the house to the backyard where about ten guests, including Rene A. Louapre, were having a crayfish party, and similarly pointed and clicked his gun at them while demanding 'his man'.
- Mrs. Chatagnier called for police assistance.
- Police officers arrested Johnston in an alleyway; he was holding his revolver, which contained four empty shells, and had two loaded cartridges in his other hand, with two additional unexploded shells discovered nearby.
- Johnston was a complete stranger to the Chatagniers and their guests and was highly and obviously intoxicated during the entire period of the disturbance.
Procedural Posture:
- Alexander Johnston was charged by a bill of information under Article 37 of the Louisiana Criminal Code with aggravated assault on Rene A. Louapre and Gilbert Chatagnier with a dangerous weapon, a revolver.
- Johnston was tried by the judge of the criminal district court.
- The criminal district court judge found Johnston guilty as charged.
- Johnston filed a motion for a new trial, asserting the revolver was not loaded (thus not a dangerous weapon) and that his intoxication precluded criminal intent.
- The criminal district court overruled Johnston's motion for a new trial.
- Johnston was sentenced to a fine of $300 and one year in parish prison, with an additional year in default of payment.
- Johnston appealed the conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 an assault committed with an unloaded revolver, when used in a manner that leads victims to reasonably believe it is loaded and capable of inflicting harm, constitute an assault with a dangerous weapon under Louisiana law, and does voluntary intoxication serve as a valid defense to the crime of aggravated assault?
Opinions:
Majority - HAMITER
Yes, an assault with an unloaded revolver, when used in a manner that leads victims to reasonably believe it is loaded and capable of inflicting harm, constitutes an assault with a dangerous weapon under Louisiana law. No, voluntary intoxication does not serve as a valid defense to the crime of aggravated assault. The court reasoned that under Article 2 of the Louisiana Criminal Code, a 'dangerous weapon' is defined as any instrumentality which, 'in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.' The court assumed, for the sake of argument and in favor of Johnston, that the revolver was unloaded. However, it found that Johnston’s actions — breaking into a private home, pointing a large revolver threateningly at strangers, and clicking the trigger after victims had heard shots fired nearby — created a reasonable belief among the victims that the gun was loaded and would fire. Such a situation is inherently likely to produce great bodily harm because it can provoke dangerous defensive actions from victims (like attempting to escape, disarm the assailant, or use self-defense), which often result in serious injury or death. Thus, the unloaded revolver, 'in the manner used,' was a dangerous weapon. Regarding intoxication, Article 15 of the Code states that voluntary intoxication is generally immaterial, unless it is involuntary or precludes 'specific criminal intent' or 'special knowledge' required for a crime. The court noted that aggravated assault, under Articles 36 and 37, requires only 'general criminal intent' because the definition of assault uses the word 'intentional' without qualification. Since aggravated assault does not require 'specific criminal intent,' the defense of voluntary intoxication under Section 2 of Article 15 is inapplicable. Furthermore, Johnston's actions, such as running, forcibly entering a home, pointing the gun, actively searching for 'his man,' and hiding from police, demonstrated sufficient mental and muscular control to form general criminal intent, despite his intoxication.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of 'dangerous weapon' in Louisiana law, establishing that the potential for harm lies not only in the inherent capacity of an object but also in the victim's reasonable perception and the context of its use, which can incite dangerous defensive reactions. It further clarifies the limited scope of the voluntary intoxication defense, affirming that it applies only to crimes requiring specific criminal intent, thereby reinforcing individual responsibility for actions undertaken while voluntarily intoxicated for offenses requiring general criminal intent. This ruling serves as a strong precedent for evaluating weapon dangerousness based on situational context and for strictly applying the intent requirements for various crimes.
