State v. Boudoin, 106 So. 3d 1213

Defendant Bryant Boudoin was tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and second degree murder; sentenced to ten years on the conspiracy count concurrent with life on the murder count.
Victim Elizabeth McDaniel was fatally beaten during an aggravated burglary at her Marrero home; the home’s green safe had pry marks and a pry bar was later found in defendant’s trunk.
Witnesses described an unknown white male suspect; neighbors noted a possible intruder near the victim’s home prior to the attack; a suspicious vehicle linked to the victim’s street was observed by FBI surveillance.
Investigators linked the defendant to the crime through vehicle records, alibi questioning, and the discovery of a pry bar matching tool marks on the safe and door strike plate.
Forensic experts linked the pry bar to the safe and door frame; another expert opined the pry bar could have caused the victim’s injuries, supporting the murder charge under felony murder theory.
The defense raised Daubert challenges to the experts; the court held one expert’s testimony waived due to failure to object, while the other was preserved and upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy	Boudoin conspired with an unknown white man to commit aggravated burglary.	No proof of agreement or participation by defendant; no link to unknown co-conspirator.	Evidence sufficient; jury could find two-perpetrator conspiracy.
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder	Underlying aggravated burglary plus death supports felony-murder conviction.	May not have inflicted fatal injuries; lack of direct act by defendant.	Sufficient to convict under felony-murder doctrine.
Admission of expert testimony (Daubert)	Caruso and Waltzer testimony is admissible and helpful.	Testimony constitutes junk science and should be excluded.	Caruso testimony waived; Waltzer testimony admissible; no reversible error.
Trial court comments on evidence via overt acts	Overt acts read from indictment aided jury’s understanding.	Repeated readings impermissibly conveyed the court’s opinion.	No reversible error; readings did not impermissibly comment on evidence.

State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (standard for sufficiency review; Jackson v. Virginia cited)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Banford, 653 So.2d 671 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1995) (affirmative test for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Tatum, 40 So.3d 1082 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (conspiracy elements and acts in furtherance)
State v. Cedrington, 725 So.2d 565 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998) (felony murder doctrine and underlying felony)
State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (Daubert gatekeeping for expert testimony)
State v. Chauvin, 846 So.2d 697 (La. 2003) (Daubert factors in Louisiana context)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert applicability to technical testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for scientific validity of expert testimony)