151 So. 3d 100
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Melancon was convicted by jury of distribution of heroin, possession with intent to distribute heroin, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; he was sentenced to concurrent terms, later adjudicated a third felony offender and resentenced to 40 years.
- Evidence included undercover surveillance, a drug sale to Brook Franklin at a Domino’s/Popeye’s area, and a search of 650 Bellemeade, Apartment 4-K, yielding heroin, cash, a pistol, and related paraphernalia.
- Franklin and Barteet testified to a hand-to-hand heroin transaction and to Franklin’s prior drug use and diversion program status.
- Barteet obtained a search warrant for Apartment 4-K based on surveillance and informant information; items recovered included heroin, a nine‑mm pistol, cash, a scale, and a cell phone.
- State officers connected defendant to the Bellemeade apartment via witness testimony and evidence, establishing dominion and control over the heroin and physical link to the apartment.
- The trial court denied suppression motions; on appeal, the court affirmed, remanding only for correction of the Uniform Commitment Order dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for count II (distribution of heroin) | State argues evidence showed transfer of heroin to Franklin. | Melancon contends no proof he transferred possession. | Sufficiency established; reasonable jury could find transfer beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of proof for counts III and IV (possession with intent to distribute heroin; firearm by convicted felon) | State argues constructively possessed heroin; factors show intent to distribute; firearm linked to apartment. | Melancon argues lack of direct possession linkage and lack of intent proof. | Sufficient evidence to support both convictions. |
| Motion to suppress the apartment evidence | State contends probable cause supported by affidavit and totality of the information. | Melancon asserts deficiencies and inconsistencies in the warrant affidavit. | Denied; probable cause supported; suppression affirmed. |
| Mistrial due to Detective Barteet’s testimony about a phone call | State contends testimony was elicited on cross-examination and not improper. | Melancon argues the testimony tainted jury and warranted mistrial. | No mistrial required; no reversible error under Article 770/771. |
| Arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (pro se) | State treated as waived; if preserved, it lacks merit. | Melancon asserts unlawful detention/arrest. | Waived; alternatively unsupported; evidence supports detainment and arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational finder could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Ortiz, 701 So.2d 922 (La. 1997) (Jackson-based sufficiency review in Louisiana)
- State v. Holmes, 735 So.2d 687 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (credibility and evidentiary conflicts for jury assessment)
- State v. Caffrey, 15 So.3d 198 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (sufficiency standard and witness credibility considerations)
- State v. Williams, 904 So.2d 830 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2005) (circumstantial evidence framework and exclusion of reasonable hypotheses)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984) (standard for evaluating evidence against reasonable doubt; not to hypothesize alternate explanations)