STATE v. McMILLIAN

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 41139.

Advocates

Warren Hunt, Rayville, for appellant. Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Ass't. Atty. Gen., and Fred Fudickar, Jr., Dist. Atty., Monroe, for appellee.

Judges

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant, Mrs. Acle McMillian, was indicted for the murder of her husband, Dudley McMillian. She was tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to 15 years at hard labor in the state penitentiary. She appealed from this conviction and sentence. The homicide was admitted by the appellant, but she pleaded self-defense. The appeal principally concerns the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence related to prior difficulties between the deceased and the accused.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether evidence of specific prior acts or altercations between the deceased and the accused is admissible under the plea of self-defense to show the reasonableness of the accused's fear and to negate intent.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to defense questions aimed at eliciting testimony about prior mistreatment of the accused by the deceased while intoxicated.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The defense sought to introduce evidence of prior physical abuse by the deceased when intoxicated to show the reasonableness of the accused's fear of great bodily harm at the time of the homicide.
Such evidence was relevant under Article 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits relevant evidence that tends to negative the commission of the offense and the intent.
Evidence of prior difficulties is admissible to explain the state of mind of the accused and the deceased, and to show who was the aggressor.

Appellee's Arguments

The State argued that under Article 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, character depends on general reputation among neighbors, not on specific acts or prior altercations.
The State conceded that evidence of the deceased’s dangerous character or threats was admissible under Article 482 but contended that such evidence must be confined to general reputation and cannot include specific acts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Article 479, Code of Criminal Procedure (LSA-R.S. 15:479)	Character depends on general reputation, not on specific acts.	The court acknowledged the State’s reliance on this article but distinguished it from the purpose of the evidence sought.
Article 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (LSA-R.S. 15:482), as amended by Act 239 of 1952	Evidence of deceased’s dangerous character or threats against accused is admissible.	The court noted the State’s concession that such evidence was admissible but limited to general reputation.
Article 441, Code of Criminal Procedure	Relevant evidence includes that tending to negative the commission of the offense and the intent.	The court held that evidence of prior difficulties was admissible to show reasonableness of fear and negate intent under this article.
2 Warren on Homicide, § 231	Evidence of prior difficulties between parties is admissible to illuminate conduct, state of mind, and aggressor status in self-defense cases.	The court cited this to support admissibility of prior altercations as relevant to the defense.
1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th ed.), § 287	Prior difficulties are relevant when connected to the homicide facts and show continuous hostility.	The court relied on this to emphasize the relevance of continuous hostility in assessing prior difficulties.
Underhill's Criminal Evidence (4th ed.), § 560	Evidence of prior ill feeling is admissible for both parties when self-defense or provocation is pleaded and aggressor status is disputed.	The court used this to reinforce that prior ill feeling evidence is admissible to clarify aggressor identity.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the trial judge’s exclusion of evidence of prior altercations between the deceased and the accused. While recognizing that character evidence must generally be confined to general reputation under Article 479, the court distinguished this from the admissibility of evidence under a plea of self-defense. The court found that such prior difficulties were relevant not merely to character but to show the reasonableness of the accused's fear of imminent harm and to negate intent, as permitted by Article 441. The court supported this view by citing authoritative treatises which hold that evidence of prior difficulties is admissible to explain the conduct of the parties, the state of mind, and to identify the aggressor. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court erred in excluding this testimony, as it was prejudicial to the accused’s substantial rights and warranted a new trial.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

The court reversed the conviction and sentence, setting them aside, and granted the defendant a new trial due to the erroneous exclusion of relevant evidence. This decision directly affects the parties by requiring retrial but does not establish a new legal precedent beyond clarifying the admissibility of evidence of prior difficulties in self-defense claims.

Show full summary ...

STATE v. McMILLIAN.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Appellant, Mrs. Acle McMillian, was indicted for the murder of her husband, Dudley McMillian, tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to 15 years at hard labor in the state penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence she has appealed.

The homicide was admitted, but the accused pleaded self-defense. Defendant relies on 11 bills of exception reserved and perfected. All of these bills are closely related, particularly Bills Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10. Each of the enumerated bills was reserved to the ruling of the court sustaining the State's objection to a question asked a defense witness which would have elicited evidence of previous difficulties or altercations between the deceased and the accused. For example, the question involved in Bill No. 5 was: "Have you seen Mr. McMillian while he was drunk physically beating Mrs. McMillian?" The defense had introduced evidence that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of the homicide, and by the questions presented by these bills was attempting to show that the deceased had brutally mistreated defendant and inflicted great bodily harm on her on previous occasions when he was intoxicated.

We are informed by counsel for the State that the trial judge based his rulings on Article 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, LSA-R.S. 15:479, which provides that character, whether good or bad, depends upon the general reputation that a man has among his neighbors, not upon what particular persons think of him, and counsel contends that under the provisions of this article and the jurisprudence of this state evidence of specific acts or of prior altercations between the deceased and the accused is not admissible to show the character of the deceased.

In the instant case it is conceded that there was evidence of hostile demonstration and of an overt act on the part of the deceased, and the State admits that under the provisions of Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, LSA-R.S. 15:482, as amended by Act 239 of 1952, evidence of the deceased's dangerous character or of threats made by him against the accused was admissible. It is contended by the State, however, that evidence to establish bad character must be confined to general reputation and cannot include specific acts.

The State is correct that it is well settled under the law that evidence or proof of specific acts or details of prior difficulties cannot be adduced to show the dangerous character of a deceased. The evidence sought to be elicited here, however, would have served a different purpose from merely showing the dangerous character of the deceased, for under the plea of self-defense such evidence was admissible and relevant to show the reasonableness of the defendant's fear of an impending attack or of suffering great bodily harm at the time of the homicide. It would have tended to negative intent and was thus relevant and admissible under Article 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides: "Relevant evidence is that tending * * to negative the commission of the offense and the intent."

The text writers throughout the country recognize that evidence of prior difficulties between the accused and the deceased is admissible and relevant for this purpose. In 2 Warren on Homicide (perm. ed.), § 231, p. 790, we find:

"On a prosecution for homicide or for assault with intent to kill, where the defendant interposes a plea of self-defense, evidence of another difficulty occurring a short time previously between the same parties, is admissible. Evidence of a previous difficulty between the defendant and the deceased, is admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the conduct of the deceased at the time of the encounter, the state of mind of either, and as affecting the reasonableness of defendant's own conduct, and, where there is a conflict as to who was the aggressor, as tending to show that fact. * * * Evidence of previous quarrels has always been held admissible, unless they were separate and independent acts; but wherever they were continuous from the inception to the termination of the homicide, and unite the preceding with the subsequent acts, thereby shedding light upon motive and explaining conduct, it is admissible. * *

"The defendant may show the relations that had existed between himself and the deceased for an indefinite period before the killing. * * *"

In 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th ed.), § 287, p. 375, it is stated:

"The general rule is that circumstances showing previous difficulties or encounters between the accused and the deceased are relevant where such circumstances have an obvious connection with, or serve to explain, the facts and circumstances of the homicide charge on trial. The length of time intervening is only material as affecting the credibility and weight to be given to such evidence. Where the difficulty is followed by continuous hostility or a disposition to renew at every opportunity, the weight of the testimony is correspondingly increased. Where the difficulty is temporary or followed by a cessation of hostilities, or where former peaceful relations have been resumed, the circumstances of the previous difficulties are of little value. * * * On a charge of homicide, it is relevant to give evidence of a difficulty occurring between accused and deceased two years previous, where the evidence shows a continuous, state of hostility. But where the previous difficulty does not tend to establish hostile relations between the accused and the deceased, and has no apparent connection with the homicide, it is irrelevant. * * *"

Underhill's Criminal Evidence (4th ed.), § 560, at p. 1106, states:

"* * * Evidence of prior ill feeling between the defendant and the deceased is admissible in favor of the former as well as against him, where a plea of provocation or self-defense is made and the evidence is contradictory as to who was the aggressor. * *"

We are therefore of the opinion that the district judge erred in excluding the testimony sought to be introduced, that his rulings were prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, and that she is entitled to a new trial.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are reversed and set aside, and the defendant is granted a new trial.

McCALEB, J., concurs being of the opinion that the excluded evidence was admissible under LSA-R.S. 15:482.