186 So. 3d 1242
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim Bowie Richard was shot dead outside The Edge Sports Bar on January 18, 2014; multiple eyewitnesses at the scene identified the shooter and provided defendant’s address shortly after the shooting.
- Police recovered a nine‑millimeter spent casing and a live round at the scene; surveillance footage showed a man (identified as defendant) running toward the bar then quickly returning to a parked truck near the time of the shooting.
- A same‑day photographic lineup produced four positive identifications of defendant; officers obtained and executed a search warrant for defendant’s last known address and seized firearms, a Glock box, and a red shirt matching witness descriptions.
- Defendant was indicted for second‑degree murder, pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, was found competent to stand trial, and was convicted by a 10/12 juror concurrence (trial court poll later showed 11/12 concurred).
- Defendant received a mandatory life sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension; he appealed raising challenges to sufficiency/insanity, nonunanimous jury instruction, photographic lineup, search warrant, and sentence reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support 2d‑degree murder | Evidence (eyewitness IDs, casing, surveillance, seized items) proves defendant intentionally shot victim; specific intent may be inferred | Evidence inconsistent, IDs unreliable, reasonable hypotheses of innocence, or manslaughter/sudden passion; alternatively, insanity by preponderance | Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt; manslaughter/insanity not proved by defendant |
| Insanity defense (burden to prove by preponderance) | State: expert testimony and flight from scene show defendant could distinguish right from wrong | Defendant: PTSD impaired ability to distinguish right from wrong under La. R.S. 14:14 | Affirmed: jury could credit State experts; defendant failed to meet preponderance of insanity evidence |
| Non‑unanimous jury instruction (10/12 verdict) | State: La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 permits 10/12 for hard labor cases; instruction was required | Defendant: non‑unanimous verdict unconstitutional and racially biased; recent SCOTUS decisions undermine Apodaca | Affirmed: instruction followed controlling Louisiana law and Apodaca; no constitutional error recognized by superior courts |
| Photographic lineup admissibility | State: lineup reasonably fair; witnesses had good opportunity to view shooter and made IDs shortly after incident | Defendant: lineup unduly suggestive; he was only Hispanic subject, risking misidentification | Affirmed: photos sufficiently similar; no substantial likelihood of misidentification under Manson factors |
| Search warrant probable cause | State: affidavit included eyewitness IDs, recovered ammunition, witness giving defendant’s address, and criminal history—establishing probable nexus to residence | Defendant: affidavit lacked sufficient facts to show defendant or evidence would be at residence | Affirmed: totality of circumstances supported magistrate’s probable cause to search defendant’s home |
| Sentence reconsideration / excessiveness | State: mandatory life sentence under La. R.S. 14:30.1(B) appropriate given facts | Defendant: life sentence is excessive and disproportionate | Affirmed: sentence mandatory and not unconstitutionally excessive; defendant failed to show he is "exceptional" |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (plurality upholding nonunanimous state jury verdicts)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (test for reliability of identification evidence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty must be found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (Sixth Amendment jury trial principles for factfinding that increases punishment)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (limitations on judge‑found facts that increase sentences)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (federal sentencing and jury findings principles)
- State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (Louisiana Supreme Court upholding constitutionality of La. C.Cr.P. art. 782)
- State v. Williams, 22 So.3d 867 (insanity burden and appellate review standard)