312 So.3d 652
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Jan. 31, 2017, Leo Dorsey, the decedent (T.T.), and a third person (S.G., the victim) were together at S.G.’s home; a verbal altercation and a bet about a movie occurred.
- Dorsey allegedly said “I should shoot y’all for playing with me,” then shot T.T. (killing her) and shot S.G.; he left immediately. Surveillance showed the three entering the house and Dorsey exiting alone; police recovered three shell casings but not the firearm.
- Dorsey gave a post-arrest statement admitting he had a firearm and was at the house but denying knowledge of the homicide and offering an alternative story; Victim’s testimony contradicted some of his statements.
- A jury convicted Dorsey of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder (both verdicts 10–2), illegal possession of a firearm (felon), and obstruction of justice; he appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence and that the non‑unanimous jury verdicts were unconstitutional.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed sufficiency first, found the evidence sufficient for the murder/attempted‑murder counts and for obstruction of justice, but held Ramos applies to pending direct appeals and therefore vacated the non‑unanimous murder convictions and sentences and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed the obstruction conviction, vacated the firearm sentence for failure to impose the statutorily required fine, and remanded for resentencing on that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dorsey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 2nd‑degree murder and attempted 2nd‑degree murder | Victim’s eyewitness testimony and surveillance support that Dorsey shot both victims; a juror could accept her account | Victim’s testimony conflicts with physical evidence (number of shots), so it is unreliable | Evidence sufficient to support convictions (trial credibility determinations sustained) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstruction of justice (tampering/removal of gun with intent to impede) | Surveillance, missing gun, Dorsey’s admission he had a gun, and false statements to police support inference he removed the weapon to avoid detection | No direct proof Dorsey removed the gun; absence of the gun is not proof he took it | Evidence sufficient: jurors could infer Dorsey removed the firearm with intent to distort investigation |
| Constitutionality of non‑unanimous (10–2) jury verdicts for felony convictions | State did not assert a contrary federal rule; convictions were rendered before Ramos but appeal was pending | Dorsey argued the 10–2 verdicts violate the unanimity requirement announced in Ramos | Ramos applies to cases pending on direct review; 10–2 murder and attempted‑murder verdicts vacated and remanded |
| Illegal‑possession sentence lacked statutorily required fine | State: sentence must conform to La. R.S. 14:95.1 which mandates imprisonment and a fine; appellate remand is appropriate | Dorsey: (implicit) contest to additional penalty when State did not object below | Court vacated the illegally lenient sentence and remanded for resentencing to impose the mandatory fine per circuit practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (jury verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (scope of Jackson sufficiency review)
- State v. Brown, 907 So.2d 1 (La. 2005) (application of Jackson in Louisiana appellate review)
- State v. Mack, 144 So.3d 983 (La. 2014) (circumstantial‑evidence review; rejection of extraordinary coincidence hypothesis)
- State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (deference to jury credibility determinations)