Opinion ID: 1741938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Justification Testimony

Text: During direct examination, defendant objected on relevance grounds to a question the State posed to Wanda Casnave, the victim's sister-in-law. The State asked, Have you ever seen her acting in such a way with your brother-in-law that you might think that your brother-in-law might be justified to hit her? Defendant objected to relevance and was overruled. The witness went on to relate an incident that occurred during a vacation. [1] La.Code Evid. art. 401, defines relevant evidence as: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. We can discern no material fact which would be more or less likely regardless of the answer to the question at issue. The State argues that the question and testimony are highly probative in that they show that not every argument resulted in physical abuse and that it goes to show the type of relationship between the defendant and the victim. The State contends that the defendant opened the door to such testimony by eliciting testimony that the victim had beat the defendant the night of the killing. We are unpersuaded. While the violence, or lack thereof, in their relationship is material given the defendant's battered spouse defense, the question at issue does not tend to show such. Whether the defendant had ever done anything which would merit a battery by the victim does not tend to prove that their relationship was more or less violent. Whether or not the victim actually hit the defendant may be relevant; however, whether or not the witness believed that the defendant deserved to be battered is not. The defendant properly objected to the question and the trial court should have sustained the objection as the question was irrelevant.