128 So. 3d 330
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lang paid $7,200 to Marvin Hudson for a car but received no receipt or documentation and sought the money or car by contacting Hudson’s associates.
- Lang and Kendrick Henry exchanged text messages showing increasing anger at Hudson and a plan to locate and kill him; the messages included explicit kill/taunt language.
- On July 29, 2009, a drive-by style shooting occurred at Hudson’s residence; Marvin Hudson’s brother Jonathan was killed and another injured; Hudson was not harmed.
- Lang was charged Nov. 24, 2009 with conspiracy to commit second degree murder (July 25–29, 2009); the end date was later amended to October 9, 2009.
- Lang and Henry were tried separately; Lang was convicted of conspiracy to commit second degree murder after a trial in 2012.
- Evidence included extensive cell phone records and numerous text messages and flight from the state after the murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient for conspiracy? | Lang and Henry formed an agreement to kill Hudson and acted in furtherance. | Text messages were angry trash talk; no plan was enacted and no killing occurred. | Yes; sufficient evidence under Jackson v. Virginia. |
| Was admission of text messages admissible under Confrontation Clause? | Text messages are non-testimonial and admissible under 801(D)(3)(b) as co-conspirator statements. | Confrontation rights violated because non-testifying co-conspirators’ statements were admitted. | Not violated; messages were non-testimonial and admissible as co-conspirator statements. |
| Is the sentence excessive? | Mid-range sentence justified given the crime’s nature; Henry received shorter sentence but Lang instigated the plan. | Lang had no prior record and sought to diffuse; sentence too harsh relative to Henry. | No; mid-range sentence not constitutionally excessive given the offense and circumstances. |
| Are there errors patent / arraignment and parole implications? | None stated beyond typical appellate review. | Arraignment on amended information not reflected; parole eligibility misapplied. | Conviction affirmed; remanded for sentence correction to reflect parole eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (prima facie conspiracy foundation for admissibility of co-conspirator statements)
- State v. Leonard, 910 So.2d 977 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (non-testimonial private communications not violating Crawford)
- State v. Parks, 2 So.3d 470 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (non-testimonial statements to a relative not violating Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Tsolainos, 997 So.2d 46 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2008) (admission of non-testifying co-conspirator statements as non-testimonial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence to sustain conviction)