119 So. 3d 202
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pham was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 35 years in the Jefferson Parish District Court after a jury trial for the October 22, 2009 killing of Prentis Perry in Terrytown; he claimed self-defense.
- Eyewitness Annette Larre observed two men firing at the victim from two houses away, with the shooter standing in place and firing multiple shots.
- Dr. Susan Garcia testified Perry had seven gunshot wounds with a back-to-head wound and concluded death was homicide with distant-range shots.
- Defendant gave two statements to Detective Gorumba, with conflicting accounts, and disposed of the gun after the shooting.
- Detective Barteet and forensics linked shell casings and projectiles to a single 9mm firearm; Edmonson’s grand jury testimony was used for impeachment, but the transcript was not admitted to the jury.
- The defense challenged Edmonson’s grand jury testimony and Edmonson’s pretrial police statement, and raised issues about completeness and authentication, which the trial court ruled on in the course of the trial and post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for non-self-defense</br>manslaughter | Pham argues the State failed to disprove self-defense. | Pham contends the victim was armed and threatening, justifying self-defense. | Sufficiency supports non-self-defense finding; rational juror could find no imminent danger. |
| Admission and use of Edmonson's grand jury testimony | State asserts release for impeachment falls within permissible exceptions. | Defense claims improper release and lack of compelling necessity. | Issue not preserved due to no contemporaneous objection; challenged aspects not reviewable. |
| Edmonson's pretrial statements and completeness | Impeachment with prior statements was appropriate; complete statement not required. | Complete statement should have been admitted under completeness; improper publication denied fair evaluation. | Impeachment evidence upheld; completeness not required; no prejudice shown. |
| Admission of Edmonson's statements and authentication | Statement authentication issues were not properly raised on appeal; impeachment valid. | Authenticity concerns and completeness should have been considered. | Waived basis; no reversible error found; impeachment proper under rules of evidence. |
| Excessiveness of sentence under 894.1 | 35-year sentence within jurisprudence; not constitutionally excessive given offense and harms. | Sentence maximized to reflect severity; should have been lighter given youth and lack of history. | Not excessive; within range; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Theriot, 976 So.2d 715 (La. 2008) (standard for sufficiency and self-defense review)
- State v. Hyman, 33 So.3d 271 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010) (credibility and weighing evidence on self-defense denial)
- State v. Batiste, 958 So.2d 24 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2007) (extremity of sentence in manslaughter cases with deadly weapon)
- State v. Jones, 924 So.2d 1113 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2006) (precedent on near-max manslaughter sentences and responsive verdicts)
- State v. Lewis, 48 So.3d 1078 (La. 2010) (review of high-end manslaughter sentences for young offenders)