State v. Ross
115 So. 3d 616
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ross convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of discharging a firearm during a violent crime; sentences 50 years on each attempted murder and 20 years on the firearm offense, all concurrent and without parole; issues about sufficiency, double jeopardy, juror unanimity, and makeup of tattoos were raised on appeal; evidence included eyewitness identifications and ballistics linking shell casings to a single weapon; transferred intent doctrine applied to convert intent to kill Cloud to Peters and Newman; no firearm recovered; three victims testified or were identified in lineup; defense presented grandmother and investigator testimony; no ruling on makeup-in-limine motion preserved; conviction and sentence affirmed.
- Trial occurred in June 2011 after pretrial rulings and motions, including denial of a double jeopardy quash and a makeup motion in limine; multiple charges were amended to add two more attempted murders; witnesses identified Ross as shooter; ballistics matched cartridges to a .40 caliber weapon; evidence supported the verdicts despite some non-testifying victims.
- No reversible error found on patent errors; trials proceeded with twelve jurors, including unanimous verdict on count 1 and 10-2 verdicts on counts 2 and 3; all verdicts were within statutory requirements.
- Key factual framework: the State relied on transferred intent theory to hold Ross responsible for Peters and Newman; defense argued insufficiency of specific intent; the court found the argument meritless given transferred intent doctrine.
- The appeal preserved issues regarding non-unanimous verdicts, but the court held the non-unanimous aspects were not properly preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intent for counts 2 and 3 | Ross lacked specific intent to kill Peters/Newman | Transferred intent from Cloud applied | Meritless; transferred intent upheld |
| Constitutionality of non-unanimous verdicts | Non-unanimous verdicts violate 14th Equal Protection | Unanimity not required under statute | Not preserved; no reversible error on merits |
| Preservation and ruling on makeup-makeup of tattoos | Tattoo makeup relevant to identification/character | State sought to use tattoos as character evidence | Not preserved; harmless error regardless; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of other-crimes/character evidence via tattoo discussion | Tattoo evidence could be probative of identification | Risk of prejudice from other-crimes evidence | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt; not affecting verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (establishes standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence questions and sufficiency)
- State v. Neal, 796 So.2d 649 (La. 2001) (requires exclusion of reasonable hypotheses of innocence when circumstantial)
- State v. Strogen, 814 So.2d 725 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (transferred intent doctrine applied in multi-victim shooting)
- State v. Norfleet, 721 So.2d 506 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1998) (transfer of intent in murder context)
- State v. Cooks, 81 So.3d 932 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (transferred-intent theory applicable to attempted murder)
- State v. Wells, 24 So.3d 187 (La. 2009) (discussion on admissibility of tattoo-based character evidence)