State v. Saltzman
128 So. 3d 1060
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendants Robyn B. Little Davis and Carol Noland Saltzman were charged with second-degree murder in connection with William Brian Davis’s death; the State introduced both direct and circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime and to the murder scene.
- The trial involved a continuance granted due to the prosecutor’s health, a perpetuated testimony prior to the continuance, and eventual re-trial before the same jury after jury re-selection.
- Cell phone records, surveillance footage (Walgreens, Shop Rite, Albertson’s, AAA Cleaners), and ballistics evidence connected the Defendants to the scene and to the victim.
- DNA testing disclosed unidentified male DNA at the scene, while no female DNA was found; the State relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court affirmed the conviction, addressed multiple assignments of error related to procedure and sufficiency, and rejected most claims of prejudice or constitutional violation.
- The opinion discusses jury swearing, continuance/recess, and the non-unanimous verdict issue as they relate to prejudice and double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Davis/Saltzman identity supported by direct/circumstantial proof | Defense raises numerous innocent-implicant hypotheses | Evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Pre-trial continuance and jury swearing | Continuance necessary; jury could be seated anew if prejudice avoided | Continuance/self-described as illegal dismissal; potential prejudice | No reversible error; no showing of prejudice; jury swearing issue not reversible error |
| Opening statement theory of the case | Opening statement sufficiently described evidence and theory | Opening statement failed to disclose theory of the murder and principals/conspiracy | Opening statement sufficient under law; no reversible error |
| Unanimity of verdict (non-unanimous verdict) | Non-unanimous verdict upheld as constitutional in non-capital cases | Unanimous verdict required; potential constitutional issue | Non-unanimous verdict constitutional; waiver unless raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Strother, 49 So.3d 372 (La. 2010) (standard for sufficiency and credibility in circumstantial cases)
- Francis, 111 So.3d 529 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (discusses standard for resourcing sufficiency and negative inference of innocence)
- State v. Hedgspeth, 974 So.2d 150 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (continuance/recess; prejudice analysis in double jeopardy context)