196 So. 3d 876
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Daylan Bradstreet was tried in a bench trial for two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of aggravated criminal damage to property arising from a January 20, 2014 shooting that wounded two victims and left 29 casings at the scene.
- Victim Troylynn Smith identified Bradstreet in a photographic lineup shortly after the shooting but recanted or could not identify him at trial; her prior identification and a hand-drawn map she made were introduced through other witnesses.
- Cell‑tower records, witness testimony (including the victim’s mother and bystanders), forensic firearms analysis (three different weapons), and jail-call recordings were admitted at trial; defendant’s alibi that he was at a bar was disputed by several witnesses and surveillance evidence.
- The trial court found Bradstreet guilty and sentenced him to 40 years (counts 1 & 2) and 15 years (count 3), concurrent; after adjudication as a second felony offender, the court vacated one sentence and resentenced him to 65 years (enhanced) on one count.
- On appeal Bradstreet argued (1) insufficient evidence, (2) discovery violations (late disclosure of statements, jail calls, cell records, and surprise witness/map), and (3) constitutionally excessive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bradstreet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted 2nd-degree murder & aggravated damage | Evidence (photographic ID, prior ID statements, cell‑tower records, witnesses, three weapons, victims’ injuries, transferred intent) supports convictions | Trial testimony lacked in-court ID; prior ID and circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove identity and specific intent beyond reasonable doubt | Convictions affirmed: prior photographic ID, corroborating circumstantial evidence, and principles of transferred intent and principals supported guilty verdicts |
| Discovery violations (late disclosures of video statement, arrest statement, jail calls, cell records) | Disclosures were provided before or during a granted continuance; any late discovery mitigated and did not prejudice defense | Late disclosures prevented adequate preparation and denied a fair trial; some evidence was a surprise | No reversible error: trial court granted continuances, allowed review, found explanations adequate, and ruled no prejudice shown |
| Surprise witness and admission of victim’s hand‑drawn map (Villemarette testimony) | Testimony and map were necessary after victim recanted at trial; late disclosure justified given changed circumstances; cross‑examination and recess mitigated prejudice | Late disclosure violated La. C.Cr.P. art. 727 and prejudiced alibi defense | Trial court did not abuse discretion: good cause, mitigation (cross‑examination, recess, defense later called witness), and lack of demonstrated prejudice |
| Excessiveness of sentences, including enhanced multiple‑offender sentence | Sentences within statutory ranges; trial court considered La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 factors and facts support severe but not excessive punishment | Sentences are grossly disproportionate given defendant’s age at offense and criminal history | Sentences affirmed: within statutory limits, articulated considerations, and not constitutionally excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (appellate sequencing where sufficiency review precedes other trial error review)
- State v. Bone, 107 So.3d 49 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (specific intent may be inferred from aiming and firing a lethal weapon)
- State v. Noble, 425 So.2d 734 (La. 1983) (proof that aiming and discharging a lethal weapon supports specific intent to kill)
- State v. Harris, 812 So.2d 612 (La. 2002) (discovery violations require prejudice to warrant reversal)
- State v. Tyler, 815 So.2d 205 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (upholding a lengthy enhanced sentence for attempted second‑degree murder)