Touchet v. Hampton
2007 WL 397076, 950 So. 2d 895 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's claim of self-defense to a battery is not justified when the defendant initiates a confrontation based on verbal threats made days prior, and there is no actual or reasonably apparent immediate threat of harm. Mere words, spoken at a prior time, cannot excuse a physical attack, and the force used must not be excessive.
Facts:
- Purvis Touchet, a former sales manager for a car dealership owned by Mark Hampton, ended his employment in the summer of 2002.
- In October 2002, Touchet called Hampton and mocked his business.
- On October 13, 2002, Touchet left Hampton several profanity-laced and threatening voice mail messages, including a challenge to meet and fight.
- Nine days later, on October 22, 2002, Hampton went to Touchet's new place of employment, the Jackie Edgar RV Center, to confront him.
- Hampton entered Touchet's office where Touchet was seated at his desk.
- Hampton testified that Touchet turned, yelled an obscenity, and began to rise from his chair, causing Hampton to feel scared.
- Hampton then proceeded to strike Touchet repeatedly until a co-worker intervened and pulled Hampton off of him.
Procedural Posture:
- Purvis Touchet filed suit against Mark Hampton in a Louisiana state trial court, seeking damages for battery.
- A bench trial was held.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendant, Hampton, moved for an involuntary dismissal on the grounds of consent and self-defense.
- The trial court granted the motion for involuntary dismissal, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendant's actions were not in self-defense.
- The plaintiff, Touchet, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 trial court commit manifest error in granting an involuntary dismissal on the grounds of self-defense, where the defendant sought out the plaintiff at his workplace nine days after receiving verbal threats and attacked him while he was seated at his desk?
Opinions:
Majority - Amy, Judge
Yes. The trial court's granting of the motion for involuntary dismissal was manifestly erroneous because the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not support the defendant's claim of self-defense. The court reasoned that under Louisiana law, words spoken some time prior to an altercation cannot justify a physical attack. The nine-day gap between Touchet's threatening voicemails and Hampton's arrival at Touchet's workplace negates the immediacy required for a self-defense claim. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony indicated Touchet made no aggressive physical moves and was seated when Hampton began the attack. Even assuming Touchet's actions could be perceived as threatening, the force Hampton used was excessive, as he repeatedly struck a defenseless Touchet and had to be physically removed, which is more indicative of retaliation than self-defense.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirements for the affirmative defense of self-defense in battery cases under Louisiana law. It clarifies that the privilege is based on the prevention of immediate harm, not retaliation for past grievances or verbal provocations. The court's focus on the time-lapse between the threat and the confrontation establishes that a defendant cannot initiate contact after a 'cooling off' period and still validly claim self-defense. This holding serves to deter preemptive or retaliatory violence and underscores that the burden is on the defendant to prove both a reasonable, imminent fear and a proportional response.
