State v. Sinegal, 97 So. 3d 649

Terrance L. Sinegal and three co-defendants robbed Nicholas Carter of $289 at gunpoint; Sinegal was charged with armed robbery under La.R.S. 14:64 and convicted of simple robbery under La.R.S. 14:65(A); he received seven years hard labor with time served credits.
Romero and Angelle, co-defendants, identified Sinegal as one of the masked robbers; Romero testified she called the victim to a location to procure Ecstasy and helped lure him.
Angelle and Romero implicated Sinegal through trial testimony and post-offense statements; the victim gave inconsistent prior statements but identified the two masked assailants.
The state presented multiple witnesses, including the victim’s testimony and co-defendants’ confessions, plus police testimony linking vehicles and individuals to the robbery.
Sinegal challenged six assignments of error on appeal, including sufficiency of identity evidence, jury instructions, voir dire challenges for cause, exclusion of witnesses, record of bench conferences, and sentence posture under Art. 894.1.
The convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identity—sufficiency of evidence	Romero/Angelle identified Sinegal as Trill	victim said Sinegal too small to be a robber	sufficient proof of identity; co-defendants’ testimony supports conviction
Ineffective assistance—jury instructions	court failed to caution co-defendants’ testimony	counsel ineffective for not objecting	no reversible error; instructions adequate given corroboration by witnesses
Voir dire challenges for cause	challenged jurors improperly denied for cause	court abused discretion denying challenges	no abuse; voir dire adequate; peremptories exhausted by both defenses
Exclusion of witness testimony under 727/728	defense alibi/character witnesses should have been admitted	trial court erred in excluding undisclosed witnesses	error harmless; Art. 727 not applicable; Art. 728 does not require disclosure; testimony excluded was not admissible as character evidence
Bench conferences and appellate review	recording of sidebar discussions deficient	prejudicial impact on appeal	record sufficient to review; any error harmless; no prejudice shown

State v. Bright, 875 So.2d 37 (La. 2004) (identity/misidentification considerations discussed)
State v. Johnson, 664 So.2d 94 (La. 1995) (custodial statements of co-defendant are presumptively unreliable)
State v. Hughes, 943 So.2d 1047 (La. 2006) (accomplice testimony may require cautionary instruction)
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (Jackson v. Virginia standard—rationality of verdict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Neal, 796 So.2d 649 (La. 2001) (positive identification by one witness sufficient)
State v. Cross, 658 So.2d 683 (La. 1995) (prejudice when denial of cause challenges with exhausted peremptories)
State v. Landry, 751 So.2d 214 (La. 1999) (record completeness and right to appeal; bench conference recording concerns)
State v. Castleberry, 758 So.2d 749 (La. 1999) (bench conferences and review considerations)
State v. Deruise, 802 So.2d 1224 (La. 2001) (recording of bench conferences; impact on appeal)