Le barron v state brief

Justice Hallows joins in this Concurring opinion. The opinion of the court was delivered by:

Le barron v state brief

William Earnest Barron appeals his conviction and sentence for felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault in connection with the fatal stabbing of fellow inmate Roderick Rumph.

His sole challenge is that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Finding the challenge to be without merit, we affirm.

The men were housed in different buildings of the prison complex, but the buildings were next to each other and shared the same yard.

Le barron v state brief

Sometime prior to the stabbing and in an attempt to acquire cigarettes, which were contraband in the prison, Barron gave Rumph commissary goods and a CD player in trade. Barron learned that Rumph was going to renege on the deal and not give Barron any cigarettes or return the goods Rumph had already been given.

Barron became angry and discussed the situation with his cellmate. The cellmate tried to calm Barron and even offered him some of his own commissary items. Barron threw down the shank and stood there calmly.

Rumph was taken to the prison medical unit and pronounced dead shortly thereafter. Barron has not enumerated as error that the evidence at his trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction for felony murder; nevertheless, this Court has reviewed the evidence and finds that it was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Barron guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the felony murder and the underlying aggravated assault.

State, at 1. There was no such error in this case. Whether the defendant presented any evidence of provocation sufficient to excite the passions of a reasonable person, i.

First, the evidence shows that Barron had substantial time to cool down after he learned that Rumph was not going to procure the cigarettes for him and before he intentionally sought out Rumph.

As for the fatal encounter itself, there was no evidence of any significant heated verbal exchange between Barron and Rumph, and even if there had been, words alone, regardless of whether they are highly insulting, will not justify the excitement of such passion so as to reduce the crime of murder to the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter, where the killing is done out of the indignation aroused by the use of the opprobrious words.

Nor can the mere fact that Rumph turned his back on Barron provide the required provocation because contemptuous gestures alone made to the slayer will not permit the killing to be downgraded to voluntary manslaughter. Simply, there was no evidence presented at trial of the provocation that would elicit a violent and irresistible passion in a reasonable person, and thereby, warrant a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

State, supra at 2. The stabbing occurred on October 5, On January 23,a Gwinnett County grand jury returned an indictment against Barron charging him with malice murder, felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, and aggravated assault.

He was tried before a jury February 24—27,and found not guilty of malice murder but guilty of aggravated assault; the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault, so a mistrial was declared as to that count of the indictment.

Barron was retried before a jury solely on the felony murder charge April 28—30,and found guilty. On May 2,he was sentenced to life in prison for the felony murder, to run consecutively to the sentence he was then serving; the aggravated assault from the first trial merged for the purpose of sentencing.

A motion for new trial was filed on May 5,and the motion was denied on February 23, The appeal was submitted for decision on the briefs. A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

The trial court denied the requested charge because it found no evidence to warrant it, specifically no evidence of sufficient provocation. Barron now claims this was error in regard to both trials.

But, even assuming arguendo that he can properly now claim any error in the first trial, there could be no harm from the refusal to charge on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense in such trial because he was acquitted of malice murder and no verdict was then returned on the charged felony murder.

Harm as well as error is required for reversal.Originally, they were not directly binding upon state governments, as was held in Barron v.

The Mai/or and City Council of Baltimore. S. Ct. , L. Ed. 2d () Brief Fact Summary. Gary Duncan (Defendant) was convicted of simple battery, a misdemeanor and sentenced to sixty days in the parish prison with a fine of $ He. Case Brief: Le barron v.

State. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. He appealed and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Facts Jodean Randen, a housewife, wass walking home when she crossed paths with the Le Barron.

He grabbed her and demanded her purse. She gave him the purse and started quickly walking away. When he discovered the purse was empty, he went after her, grabbed [ ].

Justia › US Law › Case Law › Wisconsin Case Law › Wisconsin Supreme Court Decisions › › Le Barron v. State State Receive free daily summaries of new Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions.

Le barron v state brief

Start studying Chapter 8: Inchoate Crimes. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Search. Le Barron v. State () Facts: Le Barron, the defendant, forced Randen into a shack, unzipped his pants and began to pull up her skirt.

She told him she was pregnant and pleaded with him to stop. Le Barron v. State N.W. 2d 79 (Wis.

Popular Topics

) History David Le Barron was sentenced to 15 years in prison for attempted rape. He appealed and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Facts Jodean Randen, a housewife, wass walking home when she crossed paths with the Le Barron.

He grabbed her and demanded her purse.

Le Barron V State Brief - New York Essays