State v. Livous, 259 So. 3d 1036

On July 25, 2012, Devon Terrell Livous shot and killed his fiancée, Raolatu Alowonle, in front of her eight-year-old son; the victim died of multiple gunshot wounds to her back.
The child (J.B.) and multiple bystanders provided eyewitness accounts placing Livous chasing and shooting the victim as she and the child fled; surveillance and witness testimony corroborated the chase and shooting.
Livous admitted firing the fatal shots but claimed the victim had pointed a gun at him and he disarmed her before the shooting; he argued provocation and sudden passion supported a lesser manslaughter verdict.
The jury convicted Livous of second degree murder (specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm); the trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension.
On appeal Livous challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence—arguing facts supported manslaughter rather than murder—and (2) the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence as excessive given alleged provocation.
The court affirmed: found the evidence (including eyewitness testimony that he pointed and fired a gun while pursuing the victim) permitted an inference of specific intent to kill, and the mandatory life sentence was not unconstitutionally excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support second-degree murder	State: Evidence, viewed in favor of the prosecution, shows Livous had specific intent to kill (shot victim while chasing her)	Livous: Facts support manslaughter by sudden passion / provocation (victim pulled a gun on him; tumultuous relationship)	Affirmed — any rational juror could infer specific intent from conduct; jury rejected sudden passion defense
Applicability of manslaughter (sudden passion) as lesser offense	N/A (State opposed reduction)	Livous: He acted under provocation; victim brandished gun and had history of violence, so homicide should be manslaughter	Rejected — defendant failed to prove mitigating factors by preponderance; juror credibility findings supported murder verdict
Excessive sentence challenge to mandatory life term	N/A	Livous: Mandatory life without benefits is excessive given circumstances and alleged provocation	Rejected — statutory sentence presumed constitutional; defendant did not prove he was an exceptional case warranting relief
Standard of appellate review on sufficiency and credibility	State: Jackson standard; defer to jury credibility determinations	Livous: Requests reversal based on alternative hypothesis of innocence	Court: Applied Jackson v. Virginia standard; will not reweigh credibility; affirmed conviction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes due-process standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Mickelson, 149 So.3d 178 (La. 2014) (specific intent may form instantaneously and may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Reed, 200 So.3d 291 (La. 2016) (pointing and firing a gun can support inference of specific intent to kill; analysis of sudden passion manslaughter)
State v. McGhee, 223 So.3d 1136 (La. 2017) (appellate courts must not substitute their credibility assessments for the factfinder)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross disproportionality standard for excessive sentence challenges)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (legislature defines penalties and statutory sentences are presumed constitutional)
State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (defendant must show unusual circumstances to rebut presumption of constitutionality for mandatory sentences)