200 So. 3d 817
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Jon Wray Baumberger was indicted for second-degree murder after his wife, Treasa Baumberger, was found dead following a December 5, 2010, bedroom altercation; defendant called 911 several hours later and was arrested.
- Autopsy concluded cause of death was asphyxiation (homicide); pathology showed neck injuries consistent with strangulation/chokehold and petechiae; defense and prosecution experts offered differing mechanisms.
- Defendant had a recorded, intoxicated police interview admitting an altercation, saying he did not remember killing his wife and attributing memory loss to heavy drinking; BAC at 3:30 a.m. was .17, with expert extrapolating higher BAC at time of death.
- Jury convicted 11–1 of second-degree murder (specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm); defendant sentenced to life without parole.
- On appeal, defendant raised sufficiency (specific intent, self-defense, manslaughter/accident), voluntary intoxication, speedy trial/prescription, nonunanimous jury, several procedural/jury-impaneling claims, and ineffective assistance of counsel; court affirmed conviction but directed trial court to notify defendant of post-conviction prescriptive period under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Specific intent | Evidence supports inference defendant intentionally asphyxiated victim; circumstantial evidence excludes reasonable innocence hypotheses | Defendant claimed self-defense, accidental killing during intoxication, or manslaughter due to heat of passion | Conviction affirmed: jury could infer specific intent from circumstances and multiple asphyxiation attempts; reasonable hypotheses of innocence were rejected |
| Voluntary intoxication defense | State can prove specific intent beyond reasonable doubt despite intoxication | Defendant argued extreme intoxication precluded formation of specific intent (memory loss/blackout) | Rejected: defendant failed to prove incapacity to form intent; intoxication did not negate specific intent given evidence |
| Speedy-trial / Prescription (La. Code Crim. P. arts. 578, 580) | State showed tolled/suspended periods via continuances and preliminary pleas, giving at least one year after rulings to commence trial | Trial began >2 years after indictment; defendant moved to quash for prescription | Rejected: record shows multiple defendant-consented continuances and preliminary pleas; the State retained sufficient time to commence trial; motion to quash properly denied |
| Nonunanimous jury / Due process | State relies on precedent permitting nonunanimous convictions under Louisiana law | Defendant argued modern Supreme Court developments call Apodaca into question and that 11–1 verdict violated due process | Rejected: Louisiana and U.S. precedent (including Apodaca and subsequent citations) permit nonunanimous verdicts as applied; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1972) (plurality upholding nonunanimous state jury verdicts in felony cases)
- State v. Rome, 630 So.2d 1284 (La. 1994) (state bears burden to show interruption/suspension of prescription for trial delay)
- State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464 (La. 1983) (framework for assessing reasonable hypothesis of innocence on circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Mickelson, 149 So.3d 178 (La. 2014) (voluntary intoxication as defense to specific-intent crimes)
- State v. Mack, 144 So.3d 983 (La. 2014) (deference to trier of fact in weighing circumstantial evidence and hypotheses of innocence)
- State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La. 1983) (cited regarding sufficiency review)