## Facts

- John Wesley Bean and his estranged wife, Elgie Palmo Mack, were living separately.
- Bean went to the home where Mack was staying to retrieve personal items and encountered Mack with another man inside the residence.
- Bean and Mack left in a car with their four-year-old daughter and seven-year-old niece seated in the back.
- During the drive, the seven-year-old niece heard Bean repeatedly state he was going to “bury” Mack.
- Bean had a .38-caliber semiautomatic pistol in the car; Mack was shot, fell from the vehicle, and testimony indicated another shot was fired after she fell into the street.
- Bean fled, disposed of the gun, traveled out of state for about a week, and surrendered to police approximately one week later.
- A jury convicted Bean of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed a mandatory life sentence at hard labor without benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting a bystander’s testimony recounting the four-year-old child’s statements immediately after the shooting as hearsay.
2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing police testimony that repeated statements made by others during the initial investigation.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the seven-year-old eyewitness competent to testify.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove second degree murder, including specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The child’s immediate statements identifying Bean as the shooter were properly admitted as excited utterances.
- The challenged police testimony was either not offered for its truth (but to explain investigative steps) or did not amount to reversible error.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the seven-year-old eyewitness competent.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find specific intent and all elements of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A spontaneous statement made under the stress of a startling event and closely connected to that event may be admissible as an excited utterance, including statements by very young children when circumstances show lack of time for reflection or fabrication.
- Out-of-court statements introduced to explain why police took certain actions, rather than for the truth of the statements, are not hearsay; erroneous admission of hearsay may be harmless when independent evidence of guilt is strong.
- Child-witness competency is determined case-by-case; the trial court has broad discretion to assess whether the child understands the duty to tell the truth and can observe, remember, and relate events.
- Under the constitutional sufficiency standard, intent may be inferred from threats, the manner of the killing (including multiple shots), and post-offense conduct such as flight and disposal of the weapon.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the second degree murder conviction and mandatory life sentence, finding no reversible error in the admission of the child’s excited utterances, the competency ruling for the seven-year-old eyewitness, or the jury’s determination that the evidence proved specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Bean, 582 So. 2d 947 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991)