State v. Cooks, 81 So. 3d 932

Cooks and Lyons were charged as principals in the March 10, 2009 shooting of Donnie Floyd; Floyd was the shooting victim in an apartment at 3719 Washington Ave.
Floyd, who testified, initially described a debt dispute over drugs and identified Cooks as the shooter via photo lineup; Lyons was identified as the other shooter.
Detective DeLarge investigated, reviewed statements, and obtained warrants; Floyd later changed his account several times.
Floyd testified he and Cooks argued about a debt; Floyd drew a Glock handgun (allegedly unloaded) in the doorway, and Lyons shot Floyd from downstairs.
Cooks allegedly signaled Lyons to shoot Floyd; Cooks fled after the shooting and was not armed; no spent casings or weapon recovered at the scene.
The trial court convicted Cooks of being a principal to attempted second-degree murder; on appeal, the court reversed, vacated the conviction and sentence on sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proves Cooks as a principal to attempted second-degree murder beyond reasonable doubt.	Cooks signaled Lyons and shared intent to kill Floyd.	No proof of Cooks's specific intent to kill; signals were vague.	Conviction reversed; insufficient evidence to prove principal with requisite intent.
Whether there was sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill by Cooks to sustain attempted second-degree murder.	Cooks intentionally aided in Floyd's death via signaling.	No direct or inferable intent to kill by Cooks; proximity and signaling uncertain.	Insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill by Cooks; cannot sustain conviction.
Whether self-defense/justification applied to the shooting and its impact on guilt.	Lyons acted in defense of Cooks; shooting justified.	State failed to prove absence of justification beyond a reasonable doubt.	Self-defense justification not established; nonetheless not necessary given insufficiency of intent evidence.
Whether the evidence supports a rational jury finding of any predicate crime or conduct beyond reasonable doubt under circumstantial/evidentiary standards.	Circumstantial and testimonial evidence supports a plan to kill Floyd.	Circumstantial theory too weak; gaps in scene view and signals.	Evidence insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard; conviction cannot stand.

State v. Bishop, 835 So.2d 434 (La. 2003) (requires proof of specific intent to kill for attempted second degree murder)
State v. Bridgewater, 823 So.2d 877 (La. 2002) (non-shooter must have personal intent to kill; cannot transfer shooter intent)
State v. Fluker, 618 So.2d 459 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993) (state bears burden on self-defense in homicide; standard applied in non-homicide cases varies by panel)
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (circumstantial evidence must overcome reasonable doubt; all evidence viewed in light favorable to prosecution)
State v. Seals, 684 So.2d 368 (La. 1996) (specific intent can be inferred under certain circumstances from related acts)