State v. Mollerberg
260 So.3d 599 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of force upon another is not justifiable as self-defense or defense of property when the force used is not reasonable under the circumstances or apparently necessary to prevent an offense, particularly when the defendant becomes the aggressor in the conflict.
Facts:
- On May 8, 2016, Calob Leindecker briefly used Erik Mollerberg's driveway to turn his car around.
- Mollerberg's son ran to the driveway gate gesturing for Leindecker to leave. As Leindecker drove away, Mollerberg followed him down the driveway making gestures.
- Confused, Leindecker backed up his car on the public street to ask what was wrong. Mollerberg went inside while his wife, Shannon, began yelling at Leindecker from the backyard.
- Leindecker drove to a nearby gas station. While he was gone, Mollerberg emerged from his house with an AR-15 rifle.
- When Leindecker returned a few minutes later and drove past the house, Mollerberg flagged him down from the street.
- After a brief exchange, as Leindecker began to drive away, Mollerberg jabbed the muzzle of the rifle into the passenger-side door of Leindecker's car.
- Mollerberg then approached the passenger window and pointed the AR-15 rifle directly at Leindecker, who sped away.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Erik Mollerberg by bill of information with simple criminal damage to property and aggravated assault with a firearm.
- Mollerberg pled not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial.
- Following a bench trial in the trial court, the judge found Mollerberg guilty on both counts.
- Mollerberg filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sentenced Mollerberg to concurrent terms of one-and-one-half years of imprisonment, to be served via home incarceration.
- Mollerberg, the appellant, now appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 defendant's act of flagging down, striking a vehicle with, and pointing an AR-15 rifle at an individual who briefly and non-threateningly used the defendant's driveway constitute a justifiable use of force in defense of person or property under Louisiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Higginbotham, J.
No. The defendant's use of force was not justifiable because it was neither reasonable under the circumstances nor apparently necessary. The court found that the victim, Calob, was not the aggressor; he never threatened the defendant or his property. The defendant's actions—waiting for Calob to return, flagging him down on a public street, damaging his vehicle with a rifle, and pointing the weapon at him—constituted an unreasonable escalation of a minor incident. The court relied heavily on surveillance video which contradicted the defendant's testimony, and noted that the defendant’s post-incident behavior, such as lying to the police and attempting to have his wife take the blame, was inconsistent with a claim of self-defense and indicative of an awareness of wrongdoing. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to reject the defendant's justification defense and sustain the conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the stringent requirements for a justification defense in non-homicide cases in Louisiana. It underscores that a defendant who escalates a conflict and becomes the aggressor forfeits the right to claim self-defense. The court's significant reliance on video evidence over conflicting testimonial accounts highlights the increasing importance of objective evidence in criminal adjudication. This decision serves as a clear precedent that a homeowner's response to a minor, non-threatening trespass must be proportional and reasonable, and that the use of deadly force in such a scenario will not be considered justifiable.
