67 So. 3d 610
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Nicholas was charged with obstruction of justice (La. R.S. 14:130.1) and second degree battery; bench trial held; verdicts: obstruction guilty as charged (Count I) and simple battery guilty (Count II) as lesser included offense; sentenced to five years DOC on Count I and six months in parish jail on Count II, concurrent; Nicholas filed a post-verdict motion and timely notice of appeal.
- Facts concern an assault by Nicholas on Charles Parent outside a courthouse after Parent testified in a prior case; security officer Matassa intervened; multiple officers observed Nicholas punching Parent and continuing to strike him while on top of him.
- The State argued obstruction of justice by retaliating against a witness for testifying; the defense suggested the fight stemmed from a continuing feud, not retaliation for testimony.
- The court affirmed Nichols’s convictions on Counts I and II but vacated the Count I sentence and remanded for re-sentencing; the 24-hour sentencing delay requirement and procedural handling of the post-verdict judgment of acquittal were central to vacating Count I’s sentence; transcript controls over minutes resolved a minutes-vs-transcript discrepancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstruction (retaliation) | Nicholas argues no evidence of retaliation under 14:130.1(A)(3) | State contends retaliation was proven by bodily injury to a witness and knowledge that act could affect proceedings | Conviction for obstruction upheld |
| Notice in the information | Information adequately informed of the charge despite no tampering evidence | Defense contends insufficiency of notice | Information sufficient; no prejudice; no reversal on notice |
| Sufficiency of evidence under Jackson standard | Evidence shows retaliation; supported by witnesses | Defense posits alternative feud hypothesis | Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt; conviction sustained |
| Sentence timing and post-verdict judgment of acquittal | Motion pending at sentencing; no clear error in proceedings | Delay requirement not satisfied; sentencing before ruling | Count I sentence vacated; remanded for re-sentencing; 24-hour delay issue noted |
| Errors patent and remand procedure | No harmless error in sentence; multiple errors require remand | Arguments on sentencing are limited | Count I sentence vacated; remand for re-sentencing; convictions affirmed; Count II sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 824 So.2d 344 (La.2002) (notice requirements and appeal standards in insufficiency claims)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Lathers, 868 So.2d 881 (La.App.5th Cir. 2004) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt framework)
- State v. Durand, 963 So.2d 1028 (La.App.5th Cir. 2007) (application of sufficiency review and evidentiary standards)
- State v. Carter, 976 So.2d 196 (La.App.5th Cir. 2007) (procedural and sentencing considerations in non-mandatory terms)
- State v. Davis, 817 So.2d 171 (La.App.5th Cir. 2002) (procedural rules on motions and appellate review)
- State v. Williams, 846 So.2d 22 (La.App.5th Cir. 2003) (standards for evaluating post-verdict motions and notices)
- State v. Tatum, 40 So.3d 1082 (La.5th Cir. 2010) (post-verdict motions and sentencing linkage)