243 So. 3d 704
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Shooting in the French Quarter (March 21, 2015) outside the Famous Door: Bruce Tims killed and Anthony Joseph severely wounded; surveillance footage captured events.
- Anthony Joseph (surviving victim) identified Brandon Guidry as the shooter at the scene, at the hospital, in a photographic six-pack, and in court.
- Aja Doucette (Guidry’s companion) drove Guidry to Florida after the shooting, gave a false name to police, later pled guilty to accessory-after-the-fact counts and was sentenced as a second-felony offender.
- Guidry was indicted for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder, tried by jury, convicted on both counts, and sentenced to life and fifty years (concurrent).
- Guidry moved to suppress Joseph’s out-of-court photographic ID (arguing the lineup was unduly suggestive because Guidry’s photo showed a cross tattoo between his eyes) and sought to introduce additional photographs of an alternative suspect (Gerald Arnold); he also complained he could not fully view surveillance videos at trial.
- Trial court denied suppression and excluded some defense exhibits for lack of authentication/prejudice; jury convicted Guidry. Doucette’s guilty plea and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress photographic ID | State: ID was reliable and admissible | Guidry: lineup unduly suggestive (only photo with cross tattoo) causing misidentification | Denied — photos were sufficiently similar and totality-of-circumstances (Manson factors) supported reliability |
| Admission of additional photos of alleged alternative shooter (Gerald Arnold) | State: defense exhibits not authenticated / prejudicial hearsay | Guidry: photos show probability of misidentification and should be admitted | Denied — defense failed to authenticate some exhibits; one Arnold photo was admitted anyway; exclusion not shown to be prejudicial |
| Defendant’s ability to view surveillance videos during trial | State: videos authenticated and counsel stipulated to admissibility | Guidry: court refused to let him reposition to fully view tapes, violating right to be present | Denied relief — record silent as to bench conference, counsel stipulated to tapes, no prejudice shown |
| Excessiveness of Doucette’s sentence | State: sentence within statutory range and justified by conduct/PSI | Doucette: eight-year sentence as second-felony offender is excessive | Denied — trial court articulated reasons (lack of remorse, false statements, assisting escape); sentence within statutory limits and not a manifest abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (standard for reviewing excessive-sentence claims and trial court discretion)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability factors govern admissibility of suggestive identifications)
- State v. Batiste, 947 So.2d 810 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (review of excessive sentence—articulation and factual basis under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1)
- State v. Guillot, 353 So.2d 1005 (La. 1977) (adopting Manson factors for misidentification analysis)
- State v. Savoy, 501 So.2d 819 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1987) (lineup/photograph admissibility; suggestiveness and reliability analysis)