State v. LatchieState v. Latchie
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MacArthur LATCHIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Michael J. Bonnette, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.
Michael Henry, Dist. Atty., Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before STOKER, LABORDE and KING, JJ.
KING, Judge.
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether or not the State mеt its burden of proof that defendant did not kill the victim in sudden passion or in self-defense.
The defendant, MacArthur Latchie (hereinafter defendant), was indiсted, tried and convicted for the crime of second degree murder, a violation of
FACTS
Defendant had been living in open concubinage with Evelyn Smith, the victim's wife, since June, 1987. Between May, 1987 and October 7, 1987, the date of the killing, various incidents occurred where the victim, *542 Lonnie Smith (hereinafter the victim), had threatened, or attempted to physically assault the defendant.
On Octоber 7, 1987, the defendant and Evelyn Smith were in the process of moving into a new apartment. The defendant had borrowed a truck to facilitate the move. While defendant was loading this truck, bullets fell from his pocket. Don Roberson, who was present and waiting to use the truck, testified that the defendant said, "I'm not worried about anything because I'll burn somebody."
Later that day, Mrs. Smith went to the victim's home to pick up a heater. The victim returned home whilе his wife was there. The victim became upset and told his wife that he would get the defendant. Mrs. Smith left and immediately drove in her car to the apartment complex where she and the defendant lived. As she turned her car into the apartment complex, the victim's car sped by her car. The dеfendant was standing in front of his apartment. When the victim stopped his car in front of defendant's apartment, defendant pulled a gun and fired one time through the victim's car windshield. The bullet struck the victim in the head. Then, the defendant moved to the driver's side of the car and fired four more times into the cаr. The victim was killed in his car.
Contrary to defendant's testimony, other witnesses testified that the victim neither tried to run over the defendant with his car, nor did he verbаlly threaten to kill the defendant.[1]
The appellate standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence was set forth in Jackson v. Virginia,
Second degree murder is defined, in pertinent part, by
"Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(1) When the offender has specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm;..."
Specific intent is defined by
"Criminal intent may be specific or general:
(1) Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consеquences to follow his act or failure to act."
Concerning state of mind, specific intent need not be proven as a fact but may be infеrred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant. State v. Graham,
Defendant also argues that this killing was, at most, manslaughter because it was committed by him in sudden passion or heat of blood.
Defendant next argues that he shot his victim in self-defense. Justifiable homicide is defined by
"A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger; ..."
Thus, a homicide is justifiable as self-defense only if the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to save his life. State v. Guinn,
However, the defendant who asserts self-defense does not assume any burden of proof on that issue. The State has the affirmative duty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that thе homicide was not perpetuated in self-defense. State v. Sylvester,
On appeal, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not committed in self-defensе after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Sylvester, supra; State v. Brown,
In the case at bar, we find that the State presented more thаn ample evidence to meet its burden of proof.
Several witnesses testified that the victim did not attempt to run over the defendant with his car, but had stopped in front of defendant's apartment at the time he was shot. Several witnesses also testified that they did not hear the victim threaten the defendant prior to the shooting. The defendant shot the victim five times. After that first shot, defendant could have withdrawn and called the police. Instеad, defendant moved to the driver's window of the victim's car and shot the victim four more times. The victim never got out of his car. Even if defendant had fired his first shot in self-defense, his subsequent shooting of the victim was unjustified and not necessary as defendant clearly was no longer in imminent danger of suffering death or great bodily harm. From this evidence the jury could find that the State had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in sеlf-defense. Applying the Jackson standard of appellate review to the sufficiency of the evidence we find that the jury was justified in rejecting defendant's claim of self-defense.
For these reasons the defendant's conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
NOTES
Notes
[1] Defendant's girlfriend and the victim's wife, Evelyn Smith, also testified at trial that the victim did not threaten the defendant immediately prior to the shooting and never tried to kill the defendant by running over him. Previously, Mrs. Smith had given a statement to the contrary. Mrs. Smith at trial stated that the testimony she gave at trial was the truth.
[2] For the reasons already noted the killing could not be manslaughter under