## Facts

- Louisiana charged Herbert Butler with second-degree murder for the shooting death of his former girlfriend, Michelle Y. Poche.
- Butler entered dual pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and he also claimed he fired in self-defense and did not know whether he hit anyone.
- Poche and Butler met while students at Southern University; their dating relationship was lengthy and marked by frequent quarrels, and they had been separated for several months at the time of the killing.
- Several months before the homicide, Butler had been arrested for burglarizing Poche’s apartment; bail bondsman Joe Collier assisted Poche in posting bond for Butler.
- On the night of the shooting, Poche returned to her apartment complex with Anthony Druilhet, who recognized Butler as Poche’s ex-boyfriend.
- Butler confronted Poche and Druilhet near the apartment; Poche told Butler she did not want trouble.
- Butler ran to nearby shrubbery and retrieved a rifle he had hidden there.
- Druilhet fled on foot; from across the street, he heard a car ignition start and then heard several gunshots.
- Druilhet returned to the parking lot and found Poche slumped in her car; her car had moved a few feet. She died from massive blood loss caused by five close-range gunshot wounds.
- Druilhet identified Butler to police and later identified him again in a physical lineup.
- The day after the shooting, the state presented testimony from Butler’s coworker, Namon Harris, who said Butler came to Harris’s apartment and stated he had “got in trouble with a gun.” Harris testified Butler said he went to see Poche, fired a gun in self-defense, did not know whether he hit anyone, and asked what would happen to him.
- On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Harris whether it could be said that Butler was “in a trance” after the shooting; the state objected and the trial court sustained the objection. Harris nevertheless testified Butler’s demeanor after the shooting was different from Butler’s typical joking and easygoing manner.
- During the defense case, Collier testified about helping Poche post bond for Butler; on cross, Collier said it was not unusual for girlfriends to post bond for boyfriends.
- On redirect, defense counsel asked Collier whether, in Collier’s opinion, Butler’s relationship with Poche was “unusual” compared to other cases Collier had seen; the state objected that “unusual” was undefined, and the trial court sustained the objection.
- The jury found Butler guilty as charged, and he appealed, challenging (among other assignments) the two evidentiary rulings limiting the defense’s lay-opinion questions.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by sustaining an objection to defense counsel’s question asking a lay witness whether Butler was in a “trance” after the shooting?
2. Did the trial court err by sustaining an objection to defense counsel’s question asking a bail bondsman whether Butler’s relationship with the victim was “unusual”?
3. If either ruling was erroneous, did it prejudice Butler’s ability to present his insanity/self-defense theories and require reversal?

## Decision

- The court affirmed Butler’s conviction for second-degree murder and the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s decision to bar the “trance” question because it called for a speculative conclusion about a mental condition beyond the witness’s foundation as a lay observer.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s decision to bar the “unusual relationship” question because the term was undefined and the question invited a vague, conclusory opinion rather than concrete facts.
- The court noted the defense was still able to present admissible testimony describing Butler’s demeanor and the history of the relationship through observations and specific events, even without those labels.
- Any arguable error was harmless in light of the record as a whole and the limited added value of the excluded wording.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has discretion to control lay-opinion testimony and to exclude questions that invite speculation or conclusions not supported by the witness’s personal knowledge.
- Lay witnesses may testify to observed behavior and demeanor, but a witness generally may be restricted from labeling a defendant’s mental state with terms implying a psychological condition (such as “in a trance”) when the witness lacks a basis to make that characterization.
- Questions calling for undefined, subjective characterizations (such as whether a relationship is “unusual”) may be excluded as vague or unhelpful where the jury can evaluate the relationship from specific facts.
- An evidentiary ruling warrants reversal only when it affects substantial rights; exclusion of a conclusory word or label is not grounds for reversal when the underlying factual testimony is otherwise admitted and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

State v. Butler affirmed a second-degree murder conviction arising from Butler’s shooting of his former girlfriend, holding that the trial judge acted within discretion in excluding two defense lay-opinion questions—whether Butler was in a “trance” and whether the relationship was “unusual”—because they called for speculative or undefined conclusions, and any limitation did not deprive the defense of the ability to present the supporting facts or show prejudice requiring reversal.


State v. Butler, 563 So. 2d 976 (1990)