State v. Vedol, 113 So. 3d 1119

Wicker affirmed a jury conviction of Vedol for second degree murder and felon-in-possession of a firearm; life without parole mandatory on 14:30.1(B) and 15-year term concurrent on 14:95.1.
The jury found Vedol guilty after trial in October 2011; the trial included defense self-defense theory and rebuttal witnesses.
The State presented evidence including Dr. Garcia’s testimony on the victim’s fatal wound; Vedol testified to self-defense and his own version of events.
The defense sought a recess to call a material witness (Terrell Thomas); the court denied the recess.
A rebuttal expert (Colonel Scanlan) testified on shell casing locations, and surrebuttal rights were addressed; the court reviewed patent error.
An error patent discussion noted the trial court did not advise on the two-year post-conviction prescriptive period under La.C.Cr.P. 930.8.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second degree murder	Vedol acted as aggressor with intent to kill	Self-defense or lack of intent to kill	Sufficient evidence supports specific intent to kill; not justifiable homicide
Excessiveness of life without parole for second degree murder	Mandatory sentence permissible; no downward departure required	Youth and remorse warrant downward departure	Sentence not excessive; no downward deviation warranted
Right to recess to obtain material witness (Terrell Thomas)	State contends witness unobtainable; recess not required	Recess needed to secure critical testimony	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying recess
Admission of rebuttal expert and denial of surrebuttal	Colonel Scanlan’s testimony necessary to rebut defendant’s location theory	Surrebuttal rights should have allowed defense expert	Rebuttal admissible; surrebuttal rights not violated
Patent error discussion and post-conviction advisement	No error in advisement timing; article 930.8 notice not required here	Failure to advise on prescriptive period is error	Appellate court notes error patent; no effect on conviction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Neal, 796 So.2d 649 (La. 2002) (Jackson-based review framework in Louisiana)
State v. Mitchell, 772 So.2d 78 (La. 2000) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable hypotheses)
State v. Washington, 866 So.2d 973 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2004) (instruction on excluding reasonable hypotheses)
State v. Hoffman, 768 So.2d 542 (La. 2000) (specific intent inferred from circumstances)
State v. Batiste, 958 So.2d 24 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (intent to kill inferred from conduct)
State v. Stacker, 836 So.2d 601 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2002) (evidentiary inference of intent from injuries)
State v. Patterson, 63 So.3d 140 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (flight and inconsistent conduct undermine self-defense claim)
State v. Terrell, 9 So.3d 245 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (consideration of escape in reasonableness)
State v. Royal, 857 So.2d 1167 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (downward-departure presumption for mandatory sentences)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (juvenile-age considerations required for LWOP)
Simmons, 99 So.3d 28 (La. 2012) (mitigating youth factors in homicide sentencing)
State v. Silva, 685 So.2d 1119 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1996) (trial-rebuttal evidence discretion)