111 So. 3d 535
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Three young men committed four robberies across May 16–17, 2011, with Porter as the primary actor and Acker as a co-defendant.
- Acker pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery with a firearm, withdrew his plea, and was later tried on three counts after amendment.
- Verdicts: guilty of one count of first degree robbery and two counts of armed robbery with use of a firearm; sentences were 15 years’ hard labor on each count, to run concurrently.
- Appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of a statement containing other-crimes information, trial- Objections/ transcript issues, jury instructions using ‘principal,’ admission of a co-defendant photo, and sentence length.
- This court first addresses errors patent concerning the 14:64 and 14:64.3 sentence structure and then analyzes the six assignments of error, ultimately vacating the armed robbery sentences and remanding for proper articulation of the 14:64.3 enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on armed robbery and first degree robbery | Acker was present but not aware of robberies; cannot be a principal | Mere presence does not establish intent; no knowledge of firearms | Sufficiency supports convictions; accomplice liability and concerted action shown |
| Admissibility of defendant's police statement containing other-crimes references | 404(B) notice should have been provided; evidence of other crimes improper | Integral part of the act; res gestae exception applied; notice not required | Admissible; harmless error despite record deficiencies |
| Objections and rulings not transcribed; adequacy of appellate review | Record fragments hinder review of trial court decisions | Defendant had opportunity to contest; supplementation provided | No reversible error; supplementation and ruling sufficiently supported on record |
| Use of the word ‘principal’ in jury instructions | Repeated use unduly emphasized principals; confusing elements | Term used to reflect applicable law; necessary to prove elements | No reversible error; language was appropriate and not prejudicial |
| Publication of photo of co-defendants | Photo prejudicial; not probative of guilt | Photo aided identification where victims could not see faces | Admissible; probative value outweighed any minimal prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McGinnis, 981 So.2d 881 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) (discussed sentencing specification under 14:64.3)
- State v. King, 969 So.2d 1228 (La. 2007) (held 14:64.3 may apply to firearm-based armed robbery sentences)
- State v. White, 968 So.2d 901 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2007) (absence of 14:64.3 specification renders sentence indeterminate)
- State v. Scroggins, 926 So.2d 64 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (accessorial liability and evidence sufficiency in multi-defendant robberies)
- State v. Bates, 495 So.2d 1262 (La. 1986) (principals may be liable for others’ acts; narrative of concerted action)