State v. Patterson
295 So.2d 792 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant asserts self-defense in a homicide prosecution, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justified. If the State fails to produce any evidence to negate the claim of self-defense, the trial court must grant a directed verdict of acquittal.
Facts:
- Howard Patterson and the decedent were at a dance at a skating rink.
- Following a conversation between the two men, the decedent drew a knife and chased Patterson, who ran away.
- The decedent terminated the first chase and returned to his original spot.
- Some time later, the decedent again chased Patterson with a knife.
- Patterson ran to his car, opened the trunk, and retrieved a shotgun.
- Patterson warned the advancing decedent to stop and backed up a few steps.
- When the decedent continued his armed attack and disregarded the warning, Patterson fired one shot, which was fatal.
- After the shooting, Patterson voluntarily surrendered to authorities at the sheriff's office.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Howard Patterson with manslaughter.
- The case was tried before a jury in a Louisiana trial court.
- At the close of all evidence, Patterson moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing the State failed to present any evidence to rebut his self-defense claim.
- The trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Patterson of manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced Patterson to eighteen years' imprisonment.
- Patterson (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, with the State (appellee) responding.
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 err in denying a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal when the State fails to produce any evidence to negate the defendant's claim of self-defense and all of the State's own evidence supports that claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, J.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion. A directed verdict of acquittal is required when the state produces 'no evidence' to sustain a conviction on an essential element of the crime. In a homicide case where self-defense is raised, the State has the burden to prove the killing was not justifiable. Here, the State's own witnesses provided uncontroverted testimony that the decedent was the aggressor, that Patterson retreated, and that Patterson only fired when the decedent continued his armed attack from close range. Since the State presented not 'one shred of evidence that the homicide was not justifiable,' it failed to carry its burden, and the defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law.
Concurring - Calogero, J.
Yes, a complete lack of evidence to prove an essential element of the offense is a legal question reviewable by this Court. The State bore the burden of proving an unjustifiable homicide. While it proved a death occurred, it produced no evidence to establish the act was unjustifiable; in fact, all of its evidence corroborated the defendant's contention that the death resulted from self-defense.
Dissenting - Sanders, C.J.
No, the trial court did not err. There was some evidence from which the jury could have concluded the homicide was unjustifiable. A key element of self-defense is that the defendant must reasonably believe the killing is necessary. The jury could consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in this determination. Given that the shooting occurred in an unenclosed area with other people present, the jury could have found that Patterson's failure to retreat further or seek help meant his belief that killing was necessary was not reasonable. The majority is improperly reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, which is a question for the jury, not a question of law for this court.
Dissenting - Summers, J.
No. The majority improperly substitutes its own determination of guilt or innocence for that of the jury, which violates the state constitution's mandate limiting this Court's review to questions of law only.
Dissenting - Marcus, J.
No. There was some evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the killing was not justified. The jury could have considered that Patterson did not seek help from others present and did not attempt to escape beyond running to his car to retrieve a weapon. These circumstances provide some evidence for a jury to find that Patterson's actions were not justified, and therefore the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden on the prosecution in self-defense cases, establishing that the State must affirmatively produce evidence to disprove the justification. It clarifies that a total failure of proof on this element is a question of law for the judge, not a question of fact for the jury. The case highlights the fine line between a legal finding of 'no evidence' and a factual determination of 'insufficient evidence,' with the dissent arguing the majority crossed this line by re-weighing factual circumstances like the opportunity to retreat. This precedent empowers trial judges to acquit defendants when the prosecution's own case unequivocally supports a claim of justification.
