State of Louisiana v. Michael Alexander

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided November 17, 2004·No. KA-0004-0788·Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

04-788

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL ALEXANDER

************

APPEAL FROM THE

THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. 2001-5496, HONORABLE JOHN P. NAVARRE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN

JUDGE

************

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Michael G. Sullivan, and John B. Scofield,* Judges.

REVERSED; ACQUITTAL ORDERED.

Douglas L. Hebert, Jr.

District Attorney John Erwin Demoruelle Assistant District Attorney Post Office Drawer 839 Oberlin, Louisiana 70655 (337) 639-2641 Counsel for State of Louisiana

James Michael Small Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1470 Alexandria, Louisiana 71309 (318) 487-8963 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:

Michael Alexander

*

John B. Scofield participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

SULLIVAN, Judge.

On April 18, 2001, at 6:30 a.m., Michael Alexander shot and killed Frederick Victorian. He was charged with manslaughter in violation of La.R.S. 14:31(A)(1). Following a bench trial, Mr. Alexander was convicted of negligent homicide, a responsive verdict for manslaughter. La.R.S. 14:32. He was sentenced to five years at hard labor, suspended, three years supervised probation, a fine of two thousand five hundred dollars, and one thousand hours of community service.

For the following reasons, we reverse the conviction.

Discussion

Defendant admits shooting Mr. Victorian but asserts that he did so in self-

defense. He urges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:20 provides that 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.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and must determine “whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984). When a defendant claims that he acted in self-defense, the State has the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. State v. Brown, 414 So.2d 726 (La.1982). Defendant argues that the State failed to carry its burden of proof on this issue. Therefore, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier

of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. State v. Matthews, 464 So.2d 298 (La.1985).

Sadly, the scenario surrounding Mr. Victorian’s death is not uncommon: a jealous husband (Mr. Victorian) seeks out his wife (Donna Coleman) and the new man in her life (Defendant), and tragedy results. Mr. Victorian and Donna Coleman were married on May 17, 1996; they had two children. Ms. Coleman separated from Mr. Victorian in September 2000; she filed for divorce on March 9, 2001. At Defendant’s trial, Ms. Coleman described herself as a victim of domestic violence. She testified that Mr. Victorian often accused her of having affairs with other men and that he had physically and mentally abused her. She gave specific examples of his abuse: putting guns to her head and knives to her throat; smashing her face into a car window for talking to a pharmacist at a T-ball game; and beating her and accusing her of having sex with a doctor after she received a free sample of medicine for their son.

Ms. Coleman filed complaints against Mr. Victorian with the Oakdale Police Department on October 25, 2000, and November 25, 2000. The October 25, 2000 complaint alleged that they had gotten into an argument because she went to a banquet, and he accused her of sitting next to a white man. The complaint also stated that he had hit her in the face and gone to her place of employment looking for her administrator. The November 25, 2000 complaint was that Mr. Victorian was following her and that she was scared of him. When she filed for divorce, Ms. Coleman obtained a restraining order against him. Mr. Victorian filed a complaint against Ms. Coleman on December 26, 2000, in which he alleged that she had stolen his .380 caliber handgun.

Ms. Coleman is a licensed practical nurse and worked at Oakdale Community Hospital when she separated from Mr. Victorian. She testified that she left her job at the hospital in March 2001 and began working full time for Defendant because she felt the hospital had become unsafe for her, explaining that Mr. Victorian had threatened her at work. Defendant is a registered nurse anesthetist and owns Oakdale Anesthesia, Inc. He knew Ms. Coleman from her employment at the hospital and hired her to do billing for his business. Ms. Coleman testified that when she began working for Defendant she worked the same hours Mr. Victorian worked, 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., in an attempt to make herself “invisible” to him. She and Defendant admitted that they had “sexual encounters” after she began working for him in December 2000 but denied having an affair. Ms. Coleman testified that Mr. Victorian had threatened her life on many occasions and had threatened to kill Defendant from January 2001 until the day of the shooting.

Defendant testified that Ms. Coleman told him about Mr. Victorian’s threats against him. He also testified that he knew Mr. Victorian had physically attacked Ms. Coleman and that she had obtained a restraining order against him. He testified that he was fearful of Mr. Victorian because of his threats. He admitted that he purchased a .40 caliber handgun on October 27, 2000, but denied purchasing the gun because of Mr. Victorian, explaining that he purchased the gun for personal protection because he often carries a deposit bag to the bank for his business. Ammunition for the .40 caliber gun and for a .452 magnum were found in Defendant’s vehicle after the shooting. Defendant testified that he used the ammunition for target practice. Defendant has another gun registered in his name, but it was not in his vehicle during these events.

The night before the shooting, Ms. Coleman worked for Defendant. Defendant testified that he also worked that night and left the hospital at 11:00 p.m. and went to the “call room” for the hospital, which is in the same building as the office in which Ms. Coleman did billing for his office. Defendant further related that, at approximately 6:20 the next morning, he set out to drive Ms. Coleman to her home and that he was then going to the hospital.

As they drove toward her home, Ms. Coleman noticed Mr. Victorian following them and told Defendant. She testified that she was very terrified and believed that Mr. Victorian would carry out his threats to kill her and Defendant and that she relayed her fears to Defendant. She testified that Defendant turned into the hospital parking lot to confirm that Mr. Victorian was following them. They both testified that they hoped Mr. Victorian would drive on. Instead, he followed them into the parking lot, got out of his car, and stood talking and gesturing toward them, but they could not hear what he said.

Shirley Miles, an employee at the hospital, testified that when she arrived for work that morning at about 6:30, she pulled into the front parking lot behind a Suburban (Defendant’s vehicle); an old blue car (Mr. Victorian’s vehicle) pulled in behind her. When she got out of her car, she noticed the driver of the blue car standing outside his car. Ms. Miles testified that she heard the man say, “Don’t run you MF,” then the Suburban drove off and the blue car followed it toward town.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State of Louisiana v. Michael Alexander, (La. Ct. App. 2004).

State of Louisiana v. Michael Alexander (State of Louisiana v. Michael Alexander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Captville
448 So. 2d 676 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1984)
State v. Matthews
464 So. 2d 298 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1985)
State v. Nelson
775 So. 2d 579 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
State v. Carrier
670 So. 2d 794 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
State v. Hudson
760 So. 2d 591 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
State v. Brown
414 So. 2d 726 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1982)
State v. Brown
640 So. 2d 488 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)