259 So. 3d 1257
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Larry Thompson was tried for second-degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1) and obstruction of justice after a December 25–26, 2014 bar shooting in which victim David Scott died of multiple gunshot wounds. Surveillance and eyewitness testimony placed Thompson at the bar, leaving and returning shortly before shots were fired.
- Multiple State witnesses testified the victim was unarmed; the defense presented one witness (intoxicated) who claimed the victim had a gun. No gun belonging to the victim was recovered at the scene.
- Surveillance video corroborated witnesses that Thompson exited the bar, returned, and shots were fired shortly thereafter; ballistics recovered multiple projectiles from the victim and one projectile from the dance floor.
- The jury found Thompson guilty of second-degree murder and obstruction of justice; the trial court sentenced him to mandatory life without benefit (second-degree murder) and 40 years without benefits (obstruction), to run consecutively.
- Thompson moved for post-verdict judgment of acquittal (arguing manslaughter or self-defense) and for reconsideration of sentence (arguing mitigating mental-health history/Dorthey relief); both were denied. On appeal, he contested sufficiency for murder and excessiveness of the life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 2nd-degree murder | Evidence (witness IDs, video, ballistics) supports specific intent and guilt beyond reasonable doubt; victim unarmed | Claimed manslaughter or self-defense; argued victim armed and another shooter possible | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State's favor, rational juror could find specific intent; mitigating manslaughter factors not proven by preponderance |
| Whether jury should have returned manslaughter instead of murder | N/A (State opposed reduction) | Claimed heat-of-passion / intoxication negating specific intent; argued provocation and insufficient cooling time | Denied: mere words/argument insufficient provocation; defendant left and returned with gun — time to cool; jury credited State witnesses |
| Whether State negated self-defense beyond reasonable doubt | The State sufficiently rebutted self-defense (victim unarmed, defendant fired at victim, shots while victim on ground) | Argued self-defense; witness said victim had a gun and shot another patron | Affirmed: State adequately negated justification; credibility resolved for jury in favor of State |
| Excessive sentence / Dorthey downward departure from mandatory life | Mandatory life is within statute and presumptively constitutional; defendant not shown "exceptional" by clear and convincing evidence | Claimed mental-health issues and other mitigating circumstances justify downward departure from mandatory life | Affirmed: defendant failed to prove exceptional circumstances by clear-and-convincing evidence; mandatory life not grossly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (criteria for downward departure from mandatory sentence)
- State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (clarifying Dorthey; defendant must show exceptional circumstances)
- State v. Mills, 900 So.2d 953 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (discussing manslaughter vs. murder where defendant left and returned with gun)
- State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (upholding mandatory life where mental-health evidence insufficient to show exceptionality)
- State v. Francois, 134 So.3d 42 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (review of mandatory life where defendant argued only manslaughter)