Kayla Jean Lardieri v. State
03-15-00247-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 2, 2015Background
- On Dec. 8, 2013, a woman (Dana Huth) was found naked, injured, handcuffed/hogtied, gagged, and left in a locked shed after being tasered and cut; she escaped and reported the incident.
- Kayla Jean Lardieri (Appellant) and four co-defendants were implicated; multiple witnesses and Appellant testified that Appellant participated in restraining the victim, held a knife, and assisted in placing the victim in the shed.
- Appellant admitted holding a knife and helping restrain and place the victim in the shed but denied any intent to kill or to steal the victim’s property.
- Co-defendants testified there was no discussion or plan to kill the victim; the victim also did not hear any discussion of intent to kill.
- Some of the victim’s property was later removed and burned by co-defendant Trace Smith; Appellant and Smith denied Appellant’s participation in removing or burning property.
- Procedural posture: Appellant was convicted by a jury of Attempted Capital Murder, Aggravated Kidnapping, Aggravated Robbery, and Tampering with Evidence (acquitted of Aggravated Sexual Assault); sentenced to concurrent terms (30 years for several counts; 10 years for tampering). Appellant appeals, arguing factual insufficiency on three counts.
Issues
| Issue | Lardieri's Argument | State's / Prosecution Position | Held (trial-level result and appellate posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Factual sufficiency of evidence for Attempted Capital Murder | No evidence Appellant intended to kill or agreed to a plan to kill; no testimony co-defendants intended to kill; insufficient party liability proof | Jury convicted based on either Appellant's own acts or accomplice/conspiracy liability | Jury convicted at trial; Appellant appeals arguing factual insufficiency and requests reversal |
| 2. Factual sufficiency for Aggravated Robbery | Appellant did not intend to steal, did not take victim’s property, and did not aid in theft; insufficient evidence she should have anticipated theft | Prosecution relied on theory Appellant was party to robbery or should have anticipated theft by co-conspirators | Jury convicted at trial; Appellant appeals asserting factual insufficiency |
| 3. Factual sufficiency for Tampering with Evidence | No evidence Appellant altered, destroyed, or concealed evidence; co-defendant Smith acted alone to burn items; mere presence insufficient for party liability | Prosecution relied on co-conspirator or party liability theories for tampering | Jury convicted at trial; Appellant appeals claiming factual insufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Amaya v. State, 733 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (higher level of complicity required to convict a defendant as a party than for primary actors)
- Beier v. State, 687 S.W.2d 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (mere presence is insufficient; conviction as party requires intentional participation)
- Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (party liability requires specific intent to promote or assist the offense)
- Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standards for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence)