State Of Louisiana v. Brian Clarke

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 29th day of June, 2022 are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2021-KK-01460 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. BRIAN CLARKE (Parish of St. Charles)
AFFIRMED. SEE PER CURIAM.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2021-K-01460
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRIAN CLARKE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles
PER CURIAM:
We granted defendant’s application to determine whether the court of appeal
correctly found that voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense to the crime of
home invasion. Based on the clear language of the statute that defines the crime of
home invasion, La.R.S. 14:62.8, we agree with the court of appeal that specific intent
is a necessary element of the offense. Therefore, whether voluntary intoxication is
sufficient to preclude specific intent in this case is a question to be resolved by the
trier of fact. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine
to prohibit defendant from asserting voluntary intoxication as an affirmative defense.
Defendant Brian Clarke is charged with one count of home invasion, La.R.S.
14:62.8. He provided notice of his intent to present the affirmative defense of
voluntary intoxication at trial. In response, the State filed a motion in limine seeking
to prohibit defendant from asserting an intoxication defense because, in the State’s
view, home invasion is a general intent crime. The trial court granted the State’s
motion.
The court of appeal granted defendant’s writ application, and found that home
invasion is a specific intent crime to which defendant is entitled to present voluntary
intoxication as an affirmative defense. State v. Clarke , 21 -517 (La. App. 5 Cir.

2

8/11/21), ___ So.3d ___, available at 2021 WL 3552367. Based on the clear
language of the statute defining the crime, we agree.
Statutory interpretation begins “as [it] must, with the language of the statute.”
Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137, 144, 116 S.Ct. 501, 506, 133 L.Ed.2d 472
(1995). Louisiana criminal statutes must be “given a genuine construction, according
to the fair import of their words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the
context, and with reference to the purpose of the provision.” La.R.S. 14:3; State v.
Muschkat, 96-2922, pp. 4–5 (La. 3/4/98), 706 So.2d 429, 432. What “a legislature
says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or
will.” Norman J. Singer, Statutory Construction, 46:03, p. 135 (6th ed. 2000); see
also State v. Barbier, 98-2933, p. 5 (La. 9/8/99), 743 So.2d 1236, 1239 (“[T]he first
order of business is to look at the language of the statute itself.”).
Criminal intent may be specific or general . As defined in La.R.S. 14:10,
“[s]pecific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances
indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to
follow his act or failure to act[,]” while “[g]eneral c riminal intent is present
whenever there is specific intent, and also when the circumstances indicate that the
offender, in the ordinary course of human experience, must have adverted to the
prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or
failure to act.” Under La.R.S. 14:11, “in the absence of qualifying provisions, the
terms ‘intent’ and ‘intentional’ have reference to ‘general criminal intent.’”
“In Louisiana, we require proof of specific intent where the statutory
definition of a crime includes the intent to produce or accomplish some prescribed
consequence (the frequent language being ‘with intent to . . .’).” State v. Elzie, 343
So.2d 712, 713 –14 (La. 1977) (citations omitted). Pursuant to La.R.S. 14:62.8
(emphasis added) , home invasion “is the unauthorized entering of any inhabited
dwelling, or other structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a

3

home or place of abode by a person, where a person is present, with the intent to use
force or violence upon the person of another or to vandalize, deface, or damage the
property of another.” Thus, to convict the defendant of home invasion, the jury must
find that defendant entered an inhabited dwelling without authorization and with the
intent to produce or accomplish one of the prescribed consequences, i.e. to use force
or violence upon the person of another or to vandalize, deface, or damage the
property of another. This statutory definition extends beyond the mere inclusion of
the words “intent” or “intentional” to include qualifying language that requires a
defendant to act with the intent to produce or accomplish one or more of the
prescribed consequences. Therefore, the statutory definition includes a requirement
of specific intent. See State v. Ellis , 2012-0540, pp. 6–7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13),
109 So.3d 944, 948 ; see also Home invasion and armed home invasion (R.S.
14:62.8), 17 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Criminal Jury Instructions § 10:100 (3d).
The State argues that home invasion is simply the combination of two other
general intent crimes, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling and battery, and
therefore home invasion, as an unauthorized entry accompanied by a battery, cannot
itself be a specific intent crime. The State also claims that more serious crimes
require only proof of general intent, and therefore the State questions why a less
serious crime like home invasion would have a requisite intent that is more difficult
for the State to prove.
As an initial matter, of the twelve crimes the State characterizes as more
serious than home invasion yet requiring only proof of general intent, we note that
two—aggravated kidnapping and aggravated second degree battery —require proof
of specific intent. See, e.g., State in the Interest of D.F., 2020-0372, p. 7 (La. App. 4
Cir. 11/12/20), 310 So.3d 599, 602 (“Aggravated kidnapping is a specific intent
crime.”); State v. Druilhet, 97-1717, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98), 716 So.2d 422,
423 (“Second degree battery is a specific intent offense.”). Furthermore, of the ten

4

remaining crimes, only two —first degree rape and armed robbery —carry harsher
penalties than home invasion, which is punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment
at hard labor, while the remaining have lesser penalties. Regardless, it is not the
potential for harm from the criminal conduct or the poten tial penalty the offender
faces that define the requisite intent but rather the statutory language.
The statutes defining first degree rape and armed robbery make no reference
to intent at all . See La.R.S. 14:42, 14:64 .1 In contrast, t he statute defining home
invasion includes qualifying language that requires a defendant to act with the intent
to produce or accomplish one or more prescribed consequence s. The State’s
characterization of home invasion as an unauthorized entry in conjunction with a
coincidental or simultaneous battery likewise ignores the qualifying language used
in the statute, which requires the unauthorized entry be performed with the intent to
accomplish another criminal act—much like simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, which
is a similarly defined crime with a requisite specific intent.
There is no dispute here that defendant can present an intoxication defense at
trial if the crime requires proof of specific intent. Voluntary intoxication can only be
considered as a defense in cases where specific intent is a necessary element of the
crime, and the defendant claims his intoxication precluded the capacity to form that
intent. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 11-427, p. 10 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d
1102, 1110. Because the trial court erred in concluding that home invasion does not
require proof of specific intent, the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in
limine to prohibit defendant from asserting voluntary intoxication as an affirmative
defense at trial.

1 This is not surprising given that the criminal intent required for each of these crimes is apparent
in the criminal acts themselves. See State v. Kennedy , 2000-1554, p. 10 (La. 4/3/01), 803 So.2d
916, 923 (“In general intent crimes, like aggravated rape, the criminal intent necessary to sustain
a conviction is established by the very doing of the proscribed acts. ”); State v. Smith, 2007-2028,
p. 10 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 291, 298 (“ Under present law, armed robbery is a general intent,
not specific intent, crime.”).

5

Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the court of appeal.
AFFIRMED