STATE v. PULLINS (2026)

Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is vacated and the ruling of the trial court is reinstated.

I agree that the ruling of the court of appeal must be vacated, and that the trial court's ruling must be reinstated. I also find that the decedent's actions constitute an “overt act,” which would be admissible evidence pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(A)(2).

The trial court found that the defendant had introduced appreciable evidence of an overt act by the decedent in numerous ways: the decedent had been to the defendant's house several times; the decedent had sent threatening texts within 72 hours of the shooting; the decedent had a criminal history and was on probation; the decedent was known to carry a weapon; and the trial court found that the defendant took the decedent's threats seriously. Other acts of the decedent include his ignoring the defendant's admonition not to enter the defendant's yard, stepping into the yard, and making threats while demonstrating a dangerous demeanor. This totality of circumstances constitutes the “overt act” that resulted in the defendant shooting the decedent.

An overt act is any act of the deceased that manifests to the mind of a reasonable person a present intention on his part to kill the defendant or do him great bodily harm. State v. Lee, 331 So.2d 455, 458 (La. 1975). Evidence of the decedent's dangerous character or threats against the accused supports a plea of self-defense because it is relevant to show that the decedent was the aggressor and to show that defendant's apprehension of danger was reasonable. State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663, 669 (La. 1982). The defendant's mother, Elisa, testified that she had seen threatening texts ¹ made by the decedent on the defendant's cell phone, and that when the decedent approached the defendant, the defendant warned the decedent not to enter his yard, but the decedent defied the warning and made verbal threats to the defendant. Elisa testified that the decedent's demeanor appeared dangerous and that he had a gun in his hand as he approached the defendant.²

A credibility call on the evidence is not appropriate at this stage of the proceeding because the factfinder is prevented from evaluating the issue during the trial. This court has previously stated that “a trial court is not entitled to exercise[ ] a credibility determination to refuse the defendant the right to have the jury determine the merits of [his] plea of self-defense.” State v. Williams, 19-0490 (La. 4/3/20), 340 So.3d 761, 763. Therefore, on the facts presented, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court to allow the jury, as the factfinder, to make the ultimate determination of self-defense based on the totality of the evidence.

I reluctantly diverge from the majority position, even though I prefer the outcome. Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 404 A (2)(a) clearly prohibits the evidence at question:

(2) Character of victim. (a) Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character, such as a moral quality, of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the character evidence; provided that in the absence of evidence of a hostile demonstration or an overt act on the part of the victim at the time of the offense charged, evidence of his dangerous character is not admissible; provided further that when the accused pleads self-defense and there is a history of assaultive behavior between the victim and the accused and the accused lived in a familial or intimate relationship such as, but not limited to, the husband-wife, parent-child, or concubinage relationship, it shall not be necessary to first show a hostile demonstration or overt act on the part of the victim in order to introduce evidence of the dangerous character of the victim, including specific instances of conduct and domestic violence; and further provided that an expert's opinion as to the effects of the prior assaultive acts on the accused's state of mind is admissible;

The presence of a specific exception for cases involving domestic violence excludes any argument that such evidence could be allowed in other circumstances. Therefore, I dissent and would deny writ.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The text messages read:“Jason doing too much when I catch him again ima knock. Him out and yo people trippin 2 lemme kno if you people want smoke.”-3/29/2024 8:02:45 PM(UTC-5) + 17086216699“Cause I'm war ready out my mind anybody can get and. When I slide I hit kids and all”-3/29/2024 8:03:04 PM (UTC-5) + 17086216699According to the Urban Dictionary, “slide” can mean “[t]o pull up on someone (some people) in order to press an issue/fight/shoot.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slide (last visited 6/18/26).“Slide” can also mean in gang or hip-hop culture “going in opposing territory to confront rivals, or ․ for someone to defend or avenge them. https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/1hqqbls/what_does_slide_mean/ (last visited 6/18/26).The term can also be a shortening of “racking the slide,” which “involves pulling back and releasing the slide of a semi-automatic pistol.” https://valortec.com/rack-the-slide/ (last visited 6/18/26).

2.   Although the testimony regarding whether the decedent was holding a pistol or not was disputed, it was uncontradicted that a pistol was found in the decedent's possession after the shooting. The trial court apparently accepted the balance of Elisa's testimony, which is within the purview of the fact finder.

PER CURIAM.

Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Guidry, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by McCallum, J. Cole, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by McCallum, J.