State v. Abbott
222 So. 3d 847
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 18, 2015, Richard Abbott (a state fire marshal carrying a service dog and a commissioned firearm) struck Curtis Courtney in an altercation outside the Three‑Legged Dog bar; Abbott was arrested and a gun recovered.
- Abbott was indicted for aggravated battery and possession of a firearm on licensed premises; the firearm count was nolle prossed and Abbott waived a jury trial.
- Abbott sought written bench‑trial charges under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 781 on justification (self‑defense) and on the burden of proof for that defense; the record does not show a ruling on those written charges or any contemporaneous objection.
- Trial evidence included surveillance video, eyewitness testimony (supporting prosecution’s view that Abbott was the aggressor), and Abbott’s testimony claiming he acted in self‑defense to prevent disarmament; the court convicted Abbott of second‑degree battery.
- Abbott filed multiple motions for new trial (arguing, inter alia, that the court failed to apply the correct law by not ruling on his requested charges); the trial court denied them and sentenced Abbott to five years’ probation with weekend incarceration and Veterans Court participation.
- On appeal Abbott argued the trial court erred in failing to rule on his written charges (including that the State bore the burden to disprove justification) and that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to rule on defendant's requested written bench charges under Art. 781 | State: Presume trial court applied correct law; no evidence of prejudice from alleged failure to rule | Abbott: Trial court’s failure to rule deprived him of legal instructions and warrants new trial | Affirmed: Presumption of regularity applies; defendant points to no record evidence showing the court misconstrued law or that he was prejudiced |
| Burden of proof for justification in non‑homicide case | State: Court properly declined defendant’s proposed Wells‑based charge; Wells does not establish State must disprove justification in non‑homicide cases | Abbott: Cited Wells to argue State must prove defendant was not justified beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: Wells does not support defendant’s proposed instruction; Louisiana law is unsettled on burden in non‑homicide cases and defendant’s instruction was not "wholly correct or pertinent" |
| Availability of justification defense where defendant may have been aggressor | State: Evidence (eyewitnesses, video) supported a finding Abbott was the aggressor, making justification unavailable under La. Rev. Stat. 14:21 | Abbott: Claimed he acted to prevent disarmament and used reasonable force | Affirmed: Factfinder could conclude Abbott was aggressor and that continued blows after securing the gun were unreasonable; justification unavailable or not proven |
| Sufficiency of evidence / motion for new trial as contrary to law and evidence | State: Evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution supports conviction | Abbott: Verdict contrary to law and evidence — should be acquittal | Affirmed: Applying Jackson v. Virginia standard, a rational factfinder could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wells, 209 So.3d 709 (La. 2016) (discusses jury instructions and issues surrounding justification and retreat in homicide context)
- State v. McKinnies, 171 So.3d 861 (La. 2014) (motion for new trial requires proof of injustice; appellate review limited to errors of law)
- State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La. 1984) (addresses burden for self‑defense review in homicide cases)
- State v. Fluker, 618 So.2d 459 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993) (discusses dual inquiry for non‑homicide justification and burden allocations)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)