State v. Magee
916 So.2d 1178, 2005 WL 2464684 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense to a charge of armed robbery because armed robbery is a general intent crime, not a specific intent crime for which such a defense is available.
Facts:
- On December 2, 2001, Lloyd Knight stopped for gas at a Shell station on his way to work.
- Jerry Magee approached Knight, entered his vehicle, placed a gun to his head, and ordered him to drive to the Beechgrove Apartments.
- During the drive and upon arrival, Magee repeatedly threatened to kill Knight, at one point putting the gun inside Knight's mouth.
- Magee demanded and took Knight's wallet, which contained approximately $300.
- Magee also stated he was taking Knight's car.
- After taking the wallet, Magee let Knight out of the vehicle, and Knight ran to flag down a police officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Magee was charged with armed robbery in the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson.
- At trial, the court sustained the State's objections and excluded evidence related to Magee's alleged intoxication.
- A jury convicted Magee of armed robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Magee to ninety-nine years imprisonment.
- The State filed a multiple offender bill of information, and the trial court found Magee to be a fourth felony offender.
- The court vacated the original sentence and re-sentenced Magee to life imprisonment.
- Magee (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, against the State of Louisiana (appellee).
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 a trial court violate a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by excluding evidence of voluntary intoxication when the defendant is charged with armed robbery, a general intent crime?
Opinions:
Majority - McManus, J.
No. The trial court did not violate the defendant's right to present a defense because voluntary intoxication is not a legally recognized defense for the general intent crime of armed robbery. Louisiana statute LSA-R.S. 14:15(2) explicitly limits the defense of voluntary intoxication to crimes that require a specific criminal intent. Louisiana courts have consistently held that armed robbery is a general intent crime, as it only requires the intent to take something of value from another by force or intimidation while armed. Therefore, evidence of Magee's intoxication was immaterial and irrelevant to the prosecution of armed robbery, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding it. The court also rejected Magee's argument that the evidence should have been admitted because the lesser included offense of attempted armed robbery is a specific intent crime, reasoning that a defendant cannot present a defense to a crime of which he was not convicted.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict delineation between general and specific intent crimes in Louisiana and solidifies the precedent that voluntary intoxication is an unavailable defense for armed robbery. It clarifies that a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense does not extend to presenting irrelevant evidence for a legally inapplicable defense. The ruling limits defendants' ability to introduce intoxication evidence in armed robbery cases, even under the theory that it might be relevant to a lesser included offense, thereby strengthening the prosecution's position in such cases.
