## Facts

- Nancy L. Edwards was indicted in Louisiana for second-degree murder for the shooting death of her husband, Don Edwards.
- Earlier on the day of the killing, Nancy and Don had a violent domestic altercation in which Don physically abused Nancy; Nancy struck Don with a crowbar and left the home.
- Later that day, Nancy saw Don’s truck at the residence of Audlee Outz, whom Nancy suspected was involved with Don.
- Nancy took a loaded pistol, went to Outz’s home, and forcibly entered the house.
- Nancy went to a bedroom and found Don and Outz there; a confrontation followed.
- Nancy testified she did not threaten Don with the gun; she stated Don sprang up, cursed her, and advanced toward her with his hands raised.
- Nancy testified Don referred to a prior threat, telling her in substance that he had said he would kill her if she came to Outz’s house again.
- Nancy testified she could not safely run away and shot Don to keep him from killing her; Don died from the gunshot wounds.
- The State presented law-enforcement testimony about Nancy’s statements after the shooting and other evidence bearing on the location and manner of the gunfire; photographs of bruises on Nancy were also introduced.
- Claiming self-defense, Nancy sought to introduce testimony from an officer who had spoken with Don a few hours before the shooting; the officer would have testified that Don threatened to kill Nancy if she ever confronted him again.
- The trial court refused to allow the officer’s testimony about Don’s threat and limited the defense’s use of evidence about Don’s threats and violent character.
- A jury returned an 11–1 verdict finding Nancy guilty of manslaughter, and she was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor.
- Nancy appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. After the defendant introduced evidence tending to show an overt act or hostile demonstration by the victim, did La. R.S. 15:482 require admission of evidence of the victim’s prior threats and dangerous character offered to support self-defense?
2. Was a manslaughter conviction returned by an 11–1 (non-unanimous) jury verdict constitutionally valid under Louisiana law applicable at the time?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the defense introduced appreciable evidence of an overt act or hostile demonstration by the victim, triggering admissibility under La. R.S. 15:482 of evidence of the victim’s prior threats and dangerous character.
- The court found the trial court erred by excluding the officer’s testimony that the victim had recently threatened to kill the defendant if she confronted him again, because that evidence bore on self-defense.
- The court rejected the attack on the 11–1 verdict, holding that non-unanimous verdicts in this type of felony case were authorized at the time and did not warrant reversal on constitutional grounds.

## Legal Principles

- In a homicide case where self-defense is raised, La. R.S. 15:482 allows evidence of the victim’s dangerous character and prior threats against the accused once there is evidence of an overt act or hostile demonstration by the victim.
- The required showing is “appreciable evidence” tending to establish the overt act; the court’s gatekeeping role is limited to deciding whether such evidence exists in the record.
- When appreciable evidence of an overt act is present, the trial judge may not keep victim-threat or victim-character evidence from the jury by rejecting the defense testimony as not believable; credibility and weight are for the jury.
- Evidence of the victim’s prior threats and violent character is relevant in self-defense to help the jury decide who was the aggressor and whether the defendant’s fear of imminent harm was reasonable.
- Under Louisiana law then in force, certain felony convictions, including manslaughter returned as a responsive verdict in a prosecution for second-degree murder, could be based on a non-unanimous jury verdict such as 11–1.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained appreciable evidence that the victim made a hostile demonstration during the confrontation, La. R.S. 15:482 entitled Edwards to present evidence of Don Edwards’s prior threats and violent character, including the excluded officer testimony about a recent death threat; the erroneous exclusion required reversal and a new trial, while the 11–1 verdict rule was upheld as lawful at the time.


State v. Edwards, 420 So. 2d 663 (1982)