SHALMON STENNIS v. LOWE HOMES CENTERS LLC LOWE AND RD MORRIS (2023)

The trial court allowed defendants to introduce evidence and testimony concerning petitioner's ownership of a gun and whether petitioner possessed a concealed carry license. The court of appeal reversed, finding the evidence was not relevant to the issue of whether defendants, RD Morris and his employer, Lowe's, were liable for damages caused by Morris’ battery of petitioner on store premises. At issue is Morris’ self-defense claim, in which he alleges the petitioner, during an altercation inside a Lowe's store, threatened to retrieve a gun from his truck in the parking lot.

The court of appeal majority correctly noted the following:

The issue of the plaintiff's general gun ownership or having a concealed weapon permit is of no relevance. La. C.E. art. 404(B) provides that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.” Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts must have independent relevance. State v. Rose, 2006-0402 (La. 2/22/07), 949 So. 2d 1236. The character evidence rule applies to both civil and criminal trials. Succession of Houston, 52,181 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/15/18), 253 So. 3d 836. Here, ostensibly the defense seeks to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's gun ownership and the lack of a concealed carry permit to establish that he is the type of person who would use a gun. This characterization is the type of evidence that Article 404 was intended to prohibit. The plaintiff's gun ownership and concealed carry permit status are of no relevance under the facts of this case.

This writer agrees with the court of appeal. Gun ownership is no more indicative of a propensity to violence than ownership of prescription medication is indicative of one being a substance abuser. Defendants apply to this Court arguing the court of appeal failed to recognize that gun ownership is relevant as to the disputed allegation that petitioner threatened to retrieve a gun from his truck. I disagree; possession and location are relevant, not mere ownership or licensure to conceal carry. Louisiana law recognizes the right to gun ownership and to hold a concealed carry license; neither implies a moral defect. Petitioner asserts the defendants actually seek to equate gun ownership with a propensity to threaten the use of and to actually use guns, in order to improperly assail the character of the petitioner. In my view, petitioner's assertion appears to be accurate.

As shown by the petitioner in his opposition, it is clear that the defendants do not merely seek to show that the petitioner owned a gun in order to prove the truthfulness of an alleged threat. Petitioner cites to the hearing transcript, and the following statements of counsel for defendants:

I think it's logical that someone who has a concealed weapons permit would threaten to use a gun. I could get into judicial notice of what we all know about people who have lots of guns. They like to talk about guns. They like to threaten the use of guns.

I agree that such statements show that the defendants do not merely seek to introduce evidence of gun ownership to prove the truthfulness of the defendants’ claim that petitioner made a threat to retrieve a gun from his truck, but instead, seek to influence the jury's decision by attacking the morality of any citizen owning a gun and suggesting that this demonstrates a propensity for threatening behavior.¹

A trial court is afforded great discretion as concerns the admissibility of evidence at trial and such decisions should be reversed only where an abuse of such discretion is found. However, in the instant matter, I find the trial court's decision was clearly arbitrary. Although carrying a weapon that is not concealed is legal and although there is no evidence to indicate that petitioner had a gun on his person, the trial court reportedly made the following illuminating statements:

You know, I'm sorry, you've got a Judge who hates guns. ․I think they are absolutely entitled to bring up the fact that he doesn't have a permit, but threatened a gun, and he owns guns. ․Well, guess what, if he has a gun on him that shows propensity.

Notably, there is no allegation that the petitioner “had a gun on him.”

For these reasons, I would deny writ.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner's opposition raises interesting questions as to the applicability and relevance of Morris’ self-defense claim. Counsel for petitioner argues that “Respondent [ ] claims that he committed a battery because the Applicant allegedly threatened to leave the store to retrieve a weapon. Not only does this prove the absence of an imminent threat to justify a claim of self-defense, but it also clearly shows that the Applicant was not in possession of a firearm.”

McCallum, J., dissents and assigns reasons.