Title: State v. Guinn

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

319 So. 2d 407 (1975) STATE of Louisiana v. Frankle Jean GUINN. No. 56288. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 1, 1975. Leo A. Miller, Jr., McIntosh, Fox & Miller, Lake Providence, for defendant-appellant. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thompson L. Clarke, Dist. Atty., C. R. Brackin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. *408 DIXON, Justice. The defendant, Frankie Jean Guinn, was charged by bill of information dated November 6, 1974 with the crime of aggravated battery upon one Calvin Cole. She was convicted in a jury trial on March 3, 1975 and was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the State penitentiary for women. On appeal the defendant relies on two specifications of error, both relating to the charge to the jury. We find merit in Specification of Error No. 1. Specification of Error No. 1 The defendant admitted stabbing Cole in the shoulder and chest on October 20, 1974 while the two were in a bar in Sondheimer, in East Carroll Parish. However, the defendant contended that Cole came at her with a knife, whereupon she drew her knife from her purse and stabbed him in self-defense. In his charge to the jury, the judge set out the applicable law as to selfdefense as follows: This is an incorrect standard to be applied in this case, since no death in fact occurred. R.S. 14:19 sets out the standard to be applied in determining whether the use of force or violence on the person of another is justified, when such force or violence does not result in death: Thus, for the force or violence to be justified, the use of such must have been reasonable (an objective standard) and apparently necessary (a subjective standard). Therefore, if a person believed force was necessary to protect himself against an offense against his person, and the force he used in protecting himself was reasonable under the circumstances, then his use of force is justified. However, when the use of force or violence results in a homicide, the standard is stricter than "reasonable and apparently necessary" in determining if the force used was in fact justified. R.S. 14:20 states: Under this standard, the use of force or violence is justified in self-defense only if *409 the person reasonably believed (objective) that he was in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to save himself. It is clear that the statutes contemplate two different standards for two different situations. In the instance where no homicide results, as is the case here, the use of force or violence in self-defense is justified when the amount used is reasonable and it is apparently necessary to use such force to protect oneself. On the other hand, when a homicide results from the use of force or violence, it is justified as self-defense only if the person reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to save his life. Applying what we have said to the facts of this case, we determine that the jury could have been misled by the judge's erroneous charge. The jury might have been led to believe that the defendant's plea of self-defense would avail only if she were in imminent danger of losing her life or suffering great bodily harm and only if stabbing Cole was necessary under the circumstances to save her life. Under a correct charge as to the applicable law, the jury could have determined she acted in self-defense, if the use of force was apparently necessary, i. e., she believed she was in danger of being attacked, and the force she used was reasonable under the circumstances. It was not necessary that the defendant reasonably believe that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In the case of State v. Bailey, 261 La. 831, 261 So. 2d 583, 587 (1972), we held: By charging the jury as to the standards for self-defense applicable when a homicide is the result, the judge failed to give the defendant that fair appraisal of the law spoken of in Bailey. The defendant has the right to have the jury properly charged on the law applicable to his case. State v. Bailey, supra. Because the jury was not so charged, the defendant's conviction cannot stand. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is remanded. SUMMERS, J., dissents.