State v. Francois
134 So. 3d 42
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Derrick Francois was convicted of second degree murder and witness intimidation; life without parole on count 1 and 20 years on count 2 served concurrently.
- Prior pre-trial motions included suppression of identification and a motion in limine to exclude Geary’s hearsay; both were denied.
- Trial proceeded, mistrial declared, then retried; Harris testified identifying Defendant as the shooter; Geary testified via phone about Harris’s statements during the incident.
- State proved identity and specific intent through Harris’s positive identification and accompanying circumstantial evidence, with corroboration from lineups and timing.
- Defendant appealed raising multiple trial-error and sufficiency claims; the court ultimately affirmed convictions and sentences, remanding for a corrected Uniform Commitment Order.
- The opinion includes an error patent remand correcting the offense date from May 9, 2011 to April 28, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification suppression | Francois | Francois | No abuse of discretion; probable misidentification unlikely |
| Hearsay in limine and new trial | State | Francois | Admission harmless; no reversible error; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State | Francois | Evidence sufficient for second degree murder; identity and intent supported |
| Excessiveness of sentence | State | Francois | Sentence not excessive given statutory mandate; no abuse of discretion |
| Effective assistance at sentencing | State | Francois | Not raised to require post-conviction relief; record inadequate for merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; rational juror could find guilt)
- State v. Bazley, 60 So.3d 7 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (new trial review; sufficiency via post-verdict judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Condley, 904 So.2d 881 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2005) (sufficiency review when arguing lesser offense)
- State v. Williams, 3 So.3d 526 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008) (identification sufficiency; one witness sufficient)
- State v. Heggar, 908 So.2d 1245 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (present sense impression under Rule 803(1))
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (Daubert-like gatekeeping for expert testimony (state standard))
- State v. Cheairs, 861 So.2d 542 (La. Supreme Court 2003) (Daubert limitations; gatekeeping and admissibility of expert qualifications)