182 So. 3d 1192
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Donald Bates was found murdered in his home on Jan. 29, 2010; autopsy showed multiple gunshot wounds and blunt-force trauma, consistent with a struggle.
- Defendant Terrol Cole was indicted for second-degree murder (killing during armed robbery); trial before a 12‑person jury resulted in a 10–2 guilty verdict.
- Key eyewitnesses (Rhonda Skinner, Katrice Batiste, Tanisha Stamps) testified that Cole participated in a planned robbery of Bates, that Turner brandished a gun, and that Cole shot Bates; Skinner had a plea agreement with the State.
- Cell‑phone records and experts established call timing and locations corroborating witness timelines; no DNA or fingerprint evidence linked Cole to the scene.
- Cole was sentenced to life without benefit of parole/probation/suspension; he appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence, (2) error in allowing a witness to use a written plea memorandum while testifying, and (3) improper prosecutorial statements in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cole's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for 2nd‑degree murder (killing during armed robbery) | Witness testimony (Skinner, Batiste, Stamps), cell‑phone timing, and scene evidence support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | Witnesses were impeached, inconsistent, and self‑serving; no physical evidence; non‑unanimous (10/12) verdict shows reasonable doubt | Affirmed. Viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, testimony and records sufficed to prove Cole was a principal in an armed robbery resulting in murder; 10/12 jury concurrence satisfied Louisiana law |
| Admissibility / use of Memorandum of Understanding during witness testimony | The State needed to authenticate the plea agreement and could show witness signed it; witness did not read the memorandum into evidence as her recollection | Allowing Skinner to read from the Memorandum violated La. C.E. art. 612(B) and improperly let her use the document as a crutch | No reversible error. Trial court sustained defense objection and prohibited reading; the Memorandum was properly authenticated and used to show plea terms; Skinner testified from independent recollection thereafter |
| Prosecutor’s closing‑argument statements about content of calls and "radio silence" | Statements were reasonable inferences from witness testimony and admitted cell‑phone records showing call timing and gaps; experts testified phones would not record calls if phones were off | Prosecutor misstated facts not in evidence and speculated about unproven call content and gaps | No abuse of discretion. Arguments fell within reasonable inferences from evidence; even if excessive, Cole did not show prejudice given the instructions and other admitted evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Marcantel, 815 So.2d 50 (La. 2002) (single witness testimony can suffice absent physical evidence)
- Talamo v. Shad, 619 So.2d 699 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993) (witness may not read writing into evidence under La. C.E. art. 612)
- State v. Legrand, 864 So.2d 89 (La. 2003) (prosecutor’s latitude in closing argument and trial court discretion)
- State v. Frank, 957 So.2d 724 (La. 2007) (review of improper argument requires showing it influenced verdict)