State v. Nailor
78 So.3d 816, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 1363, 10 La.App. 5 Cir. 1062 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a person who is the aggressor or who initiates a conflict cannot claim the right of self-defense unless they first withdraw from the conflict in good faith in a manner that makes their desire to cease the conflict known to the other party.
Facts:
- Steven Cain and Brittany Nailor had a child together and followed a court-ordered visitation schedule.
- Jacque Nailor, Brittany's father, had pre-existing tension with Cain and claimed Cain had previously threatened him over the phone.
- On June 8, 2008, when Cain arrived to drop off his son, Nailor met him in the driveway while armed with a gun in his pocket.
- After the child went inside, Cain's wife, Renique Smith, saw Nailor's gun and called 9-1-1.
- Nailor put his gun away, came back outside, and a verbal and physical altercation ensued in which Nailor "put his hands" on Smith.
- Cain went to his car and opened the trunk, which he claimed was a diversionary tactic to help them escape.
- Believing Cain was retrieving a weapon, Nailor ran back into the house, got his gun, came outside, and fired approximately nine or ten shots at Cain as he fled.
- During the shooting, Renique Smith was unintentionally struck by one of the bullets.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacque Nailor was charged in a trial court with one count of aggravated battery and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm.
- A six-person jury found Nailor guilty of the responsive verdict of simple battery on the first count and guilty as charged on the second count.
- The trial court sentenced Nailor to consecutive sentences of six months and five years, with part of the longer sentence suspended.
- Nailor filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Nailor's motion for appeal was granted, bringing the case before the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, with Nailor as the appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the State present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor and therefore was not justified in using deadly force, thereby negating his claim of self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Marion F. Edwards
Yes. The State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Nailor was the aggressor and therefore could not claim self-defense. The court reasoned that Nailor initiated the conflict by meeting Cain while armed, displaying the weapon, and physically engaging with Smith. Under La. R.S. 14:21, an aggressor is precluded from claiming self-defense unless he withdraws in good faith, which Nailor failed to do. Instead of retreating into his home and calling the police when he felt threatened, he escalated the situation by retrieving his gun and using deadly force against individuals he had not confirmed were armed. The jury was entitled to believe Cain's version of events over Nailor's, and such credibility determinations will not be reweighed on appeal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical limitations of the self-defense doctrine, specifically the 'aggressor' exception. It establishes that the initial aggressor forfeits the right to self-defense unless they make a clear, good-faith effort to withdraw from the conflict. The ruling also underscores the high deference appellate courts give to a jury's role as the fact-finder, particularly in assessing witness credibility. For future cases, this decision solidifies that a defendant's subjective belief of being in danger is insufficient for a self-defense claim if their own aggressive actions created that danger.
