General
An Alabama judge ruled on Monday that a police officer did not prove that he was acting in self-defense when he shot an armed Black man who was standing in his own front yard, after body camera footage revealed the officer firing 18 bullets less than two seconds after identifying himself as law enforcement.
Mac Marquette, 25, is charged with murder in the fatal shooting of Steve Perkins shortly before 2 a.m. on Sept. 29, 2023, while accompanying a tow-truck driver to repossess Perkins’ pickup truck at his home in Decatur.
Morgan County circuit judge Charles Elliott denied Marquette’s motion to dismiss the case in a self-defense immunity hearing. The new trial date is set for June, but the defense can appeal Elliott’s decision with the state appellate court.
Alabama’s “stand your ground” law grants immunity from prosecution to any individual who uses deadly force as long as they are in a place they have a right to be and reasonably believe they are in danger.
Elliott wrote that the jury will have to consider whether Marquette was “acting in his capacity as a police officer” when he shot Perkins.
“It is on this hinge that the door of this case swings,” he said.
Tow-truck driver Caleb Combs was authorized by Perkins’ creditor to repossess the truck because Perkins was months behind on his payments, according to lien documents entered into evidence. But the ruling said that Marquette wasn’t authorized to assist Combs based on an Alabama law that requires a court order for law enforcement to be involved in a repossession, which the officers didn’t have.
The judge heard conflicting testimony in an earlier hearing about why Marquette and the two other officers, Joey Williams and Christopher Mukadam, were at Perkins’ house in the first place.
Marquette, Mukadam and Williams were dispatched to help Combs after Perkins pointed a gun at his chest when the tow-truck driver first tried to take Perkins’ vehicle, according to testimony from Williams and Mukadam. Combs met the officers at a nearby tow-yard.
Combs waited for the three officers to set up covertly around Perkins’ house before Combs’ returned to repossess Perkins’ vehicle for a second time. All three officers were intentionally hidden from Perkins’ front door when Combs returned and Perkins’ again emerged from his house with his gun, pointing it at Combs.
Body camera footage revealed that Marquette unloaded all the bullets in his gun less than two seconds after he emerged from where he was hiding on the side of Perkins’ house. Even then, the judge wrote, Marquette was partially obstructed by the bed of Perkins’ truck. Perkins turned to face Marquette, and briefly tried to move his gun away from the officer before Marquette started shooting, according to Elliott.
Before Combs returned to Perkins’ house, the order said that the officers should have told Combs “that he could take whoever he wanted with him to assist with the repossession, but it could not be law enforcement without judicial process.”
Both officers who were with Marquette testified that they were there to “keep the peace” and to “investigate” Perkins for pulling a gun on Combs, which could be a misdemeanor charge of menacing if Combs had decided to press charges.
The state agent who investigated the case testified that it was standard practice for officers to accompany people to help maintain order. But he also said that typically “visibility” is required to keep the peace, and that the way that the officers set up was “unusual” for investigating menacing because it is a method typically “used for an active crime scene.”
Because there was no active crime scene when the officers arrived, Elliott ruled that Marquette was “acting outside of the scope of his authority” to investigate a menacing allegation “and was therefore a trespasser” when he waited outside of Perkins house.
Elliott said that the jury will have to decide whether Marquette was at Perkins’ house to keep the peace.
Based on that determination, the ruling read, the jury will have to decide both whether that means Marquette was acting within the scope of his responsibilities as a police officer, and whether a “reasonable” officer would have killed Perkins in the same situation.
Read More