## Facts

- Sammy K. Lee and Lane Etchieson were part of a transient roof-repair group living with their families in a trailer park near Monroe, Louisiana.
- A fight began between Etchieson’s five-year-old daughter and Lee’s five-year-old son while waiting for a Sunday school bus.
- Etchieson left his trailer angrily and approached the children; Lee’s son ran to Lee, who was nearby holding a 12-gauge shotgun while preparing to go hunting.
- Lee testified Etchieson sprang at him, cut him with a knife, and threatened, “I’m going to cut off your head,” prompting Lee to shoot in claimed self-defense.
- State eyewitnesses (primarily the decedent’s wife) testified Etchieson had no knife.
- Police observed a small reddened slashmark on Lee’s chest under a ripped shirt; the decedent was significantly larger than Lee.
- Defense witnesses testified they saw Etchieson swing at Lee and observed a knife on the ground near the body after the shooting.
- The trial court allowed Lee to testify about prior difficulties with Etchieson but excluded defense evidence of Etchieson’s reputation for being dangerous or violent.
- The trial court ruled the defense had not shown a sufficient “hostile overt act” foundation because the knife was not introduced into evidence and State witnesses denied it existed.
- Lee was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant claiming self-defense in a homicide case may introduce evidence of the victim’s dangerous character after producing appreciable evidence that the victim committed a hostile overt act.
2. What level of proof satisfies the “hostile overt act” foundation for admitting victim character evidence in support of self-defense.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Lee presented appreciable evidence of a hostile overt act by the decedent sufficient to permit admission of testimony regarding the decedent’s dangerous character.
- The trial court erred by excluding victim character evidence based on a too-demanding view of the foundation requirement.
- The error was prejudicial because the case turned on self-defense and a credibility dispute over whether the decedent attacked with a knife and who was the aggressor.

## Legal Principles

- In a homicide prosecution where self-defense is claimed, evidence of the victim’s dangerous character is admissible only after the defendant introduces appreciable evidence of a hostile demonstration or overt act by the victim.
- Once the overt-act foundation is met, victim character evidence is admissible for two purposes: (1) to show the defendant’s reasonable apprehension of danger, and (2) to help determine who was the aggressor.
- The overt-act foundation requires “appreciable evidence,” not conclusive proof; admissibility is assessed on whether the defense has presented enough evidence of an overt act to allow the character evidence to go to the jury.
- Excluding admissible victim character evidence in a self-defense case can be reversible error when it bears directly on reasonableness of fear and the aggressor determination.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the defense produced appreciable evidence that the victim committed a hostile overt act, making victim violent-character evidence admissible to support self-defense, and its exclusion likely affected the jury’s assessment of fear and aggression.


State v. Lee, 331 So. 2d 455 (La. 1976)