277 So.3d 925
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Nov. 8, 2016, 16-year-old Tremon Jackson was shot multiple times outside his grandmother’s house in Shreveport and died; witnesses Quincy Jackson and Kenlya Alford identified Sirdetrick Samuels as the shooter.
- Police recovered five 9mm casings and a projectile at the scene; medical staff found suspected marijuana on the victim.
- About a month earlier a drive-by shooting used a stolen truck in which blood later tested as Samuels’s DNA; that incident injured Tremon and implicated Samuels as a participant.
- Samuels was indicted for second-degree murder, convicted by jury of manslaughter (responsive verdict), adjudicated a third-felony offender, and sentenced to 50 years at hard labor without probation or suspension.
- On appeal Samuels challenged (1) excusal for cause of an alternate juror after trial began, (2) admission of other-crimes evidence under La. R.S. 404(B), and (3) the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion to reconsider sentence; the court also reviewed the sentence for excessiveness and noted a sentencing-delay error but found it harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Samuels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excusal of alternate juror after empanelment | Court may remove juror who becomes disqualified; judge properly probed and excused juror who had a close relationship with victim’s family. | Trial court erred in excusing an alternate juror without record evidence and without allowing defense to question the juror; conviction should be set aside. | No abuse of discretion; juror’s relationship made him incompetent to serve as alternate; excusal did not disturb the sworn jury. |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence (404(B)) | Evidence of recent drive-by (victim overlap, defendant’s blood in stolen truck, witness statements) showed motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake; admissible and properly proven at hearing. | State failed to prove Samuels’s involvement in the prior drive-by; admission was more prejudicial than probative. | Issue not preserved—defendant did not contemporaneously object to hearing ruling or trial testimony; admissibility ruling effectively unreviewed. |
| Motion to reconsider sentence left undecided | Trial court retains jurisdiction; appellate review of excessiveness still available. | Trial court’s failure to rule requires remand for reconsideration. | No remand required; appellate court reviewed sentence for excessiveness on record. |
| Excessiveness of 50-year habitual-offender sentence | Sentence within statutory habitual-offender range (>= two-thirds of max to twice max); trial court considered Art. 894.1 factors and circumstances (multiple close-range shots, lack of remorse, risk to community). | Sentence is grossly disproportionate. | Sentence affirmed as not constitutionally excessive; 50 years is within statutory range and not shocking to the sense of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cass, 356 So.2d 396 (La. 1978) (defendant has right to be tried by the particular jurors selected and sworn)
- State v. Fuller, 454 So.2d 119 (La. 1984) (trial court has discretion to determine juror disqualification)
- State v. Letulier, 750 So.2d 784 (La. 1999) (appellate review requires clear showing of abuse of discretion to overturn juror rulings)
- State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (articulation requirement of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 is flexible; adequate factual basis suffices)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (constitutional excessiveness standard; sentence grossly disproportionate if it shocks sense of justice)
- State v. Williams, 893 So.2d 7 (La. 2004) (trial court afforded wide discretion in sentencing within statutory limits)