State v. Plumlee
1933 La. LEXIS 1739, 177 La. 687, 149 So. 425 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is not justified or excused in taking human life or inflicting bodily harm with a mechanical device like a spring gun unless they would have been justified or excused in taking the life with their own hands. The use of deadly force is not justifiable to prevent a non-violent property crime, such as petit larceny, where there is no attendant threat to human life.
Facts:
- Randolph Plumlee, a farmer who had repeatedly been the victim of theft, had lost most of his livestock, including 74 of his 85 chickens.
- To protect his remaining eleven chickens, Plumlee set a shotgun as a spring gun inside his barn, which was located approximately 75 yards from his residence.
- The gun was placed in an enclosed bin, with its barrel aimed through a hole at the henroost across a central passageway.
- A wire connected to the trigger was stretched across the passageway, positioned to discharge the gun if disturbed by someone approaching the henroost.
- At the time of the incident, Plumlee was nearly a mile away from his property, and no members of his family were present at the residence or in the barn.
- A man entered the barn, presumably to steal the chickens, and walked down the passageway.
- The man came into contact with the tripwire, causing the shotgun to discharge.
- The man was found dead in the barn, having been killed by the shotgun blast.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for murder by a grand jury.
- Following a trial in a state trial court, the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to hard labor for a term of not less than two nor more than seven years.
- The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence to the state's highest 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:
Is a homicide resulting from a deadly spring gun, set to prevent the theft of property of minor value where no threat to human life exists, justifiable or excusable?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
No, the homicide is not justifiable or excusable, but is instead an unlawful homicide. The court applies the principle that one may only use such a device if they would have been legally justified in using deadly force had they been personally present. Here, the defendant would not have been justified in killing the deceased with his own hands because the crime to be prevented—the theft of eleven chickens—was petit larceny, a secret, non-violent misdemeanor. The law does not permit the taking of human life to prevent a mere trespass or a minor property crime where no threat of bodily harm exists. The court rejects older precedents and aligns with the modern rule that values human life over property rights, characterizing the use of such 'silent instrumentalities of death' as 'brutally savage and inhuman.'
Dissenting - Land, J.
This justice dissented and provided reasons, but the substance of the dissent is not included in the provided court record.
Dissenting - Rogers, J.
This justice dissented specifically from the court's ruling on 'bill of exception No. 2,' which pertained to the trial judge's refusal to give certain requested special jury charges.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes in Louisiana jurisprudence the modern majority rule that deadly force, including through mechanical devices, is not a permissible means of protecting property from minor, non-violent crimes. By holding that the justification for using a spring gun is no greater than the justification for using deadly force in person, the court prioritizes human life over property rights. This case serves as a clear warning to property owners that they can be held criminally liable for deaths resulting from such traps, significantly impacting how defense of property can be asserted in future criminal and civil cases.
