State v. Lee
2001 WL 79302, 782 So. 2d 1063 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of justification or necessity for a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon requires proof that the defendant was in imminent peril of great bodily harm, or reasonably believed so, and had no reasonable alternative but to possess the firearm for a period no longer than necessary to mitigate the threat.
Facts:
- Neighbors of Bruce Lee, Wanda and Murphy Stipe, observed two unknown men run out of Lee's backyard.
- After Lee returned home, Murphy Stipe informed him about the trespassers.
- Lee and Murphy Stipe walked around the perimeter of Lee's house to investigate.
- During the search of his yard, Lee discovered a .22 caliber handgun.
- Lee picked up the handgun and placed it in the hood of his jacket.
- Shortly thereafter, Lee met his other neighbor, Charles Priar, on a nearby street corner and told him about the trespassers.
- While Lee and Priar were standing on the corner, Deputy Willis Eurissa, Jr. approached them.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce Lee was charged in a Louisiana trial court with illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Following a trial, a jury found Lee guilty as charged.
- Lee filed a motion for a new trial, alleging he was improperly denied the right to present the defense of justification.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The court sentenced Lee to 12 years at hard labor.
- Lee, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate 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:
Does the defense of justification or necessity excuse a convicted felon's possession of a firearm that he found in his yard after trespassers had already fled, where no immediate threat to himself or others existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Gothard, Judge
No. The defense of justification or necessity does not excuse the possession because the defendant failed to establish an imminent threat or the lack of a reasonable alternative. Citing the standard from State v. Blache, the court reasoned that the justification defense is available only when a felon is in 'imminent peril of great bodily harm' or reasonably believes so. Here, the trespassers had already left the property, so there was no immediate danger to Lee or his family. The court also rejected the argument that possession was necessary to prevent children from finding the gun, noting there was no evidence of an 'immediacy of the threat' as no children were present or likely to gain access to it. Finally, Lee had a reasonable alternative: he could have called the police to retrieve the firearm rather than taking possession of it himself.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the justification and necessity defenses for felons in possession of a firearm, reinforcing that the threat must be immediate and specific, not speculative or generalized. The court's rejection of the 'danger to children' argument clarifies that a potential future harm does not meet the high standard of 'imminent peril' required to excuse the illegal possession. This precedent significantly limits the circumstances under which a convicted felon can handle a firearm, even for seemingly laudable purposes like securing a dangerous weapon. It solidifies the principle that the presence of a reasonable, legal alternative, such as calling law enforcement, will defeat a claim of necessity.
