State v. Williams, 236 So. 3d 604

Background

In August 2012 Aaron Williams lived with his girlfriend, Precious Kotte, and her 3‑year‑old son; during an early‑morning argument Williams took Kotte’s Glock, pointed it at her, threatened to kill her, and fired the gun above her head. Kotte later left with the gun and reported the incident to authorities.
Williams was charged by bill of information with: (1) false imprisonment (charged), (2) domestic abuse aggravated assault (minor child ≤13 present), and (3) aggravated assault with a firearm. He was acquitted of false imprisonment and convicted of counts 2 and 3.
Sentencing: two years hard labor without parole/probation/suspension for domestic abuse aggravated assault (mandatory because a minor ≤13 was present); three years hard labor for aggravated assault with a firearm, but that sentence was suspended and Williams was placed on four years supervised probation; sentences were ordered consecutive.
Williams appealed, assigning two errors: (1) alleged patent error because the bill of information and jury instruction described aggravated assault with a firearm as requiring a discharge of a firearm (statute amended earlier to remove discharge as an element), and (2) alleged double jeopardy from being punished for both aggravated assault with a firearm and domestic abuse aggravated assault.
The trial evidence included Williams’s recorded statement admitting he had and shot the gun but claiming an accidental discharge; the jury convicted notwithstanding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the charging language and jury instruction stating aggravated assault with a firearm is committed by "discharging a firearm" is patent error	State: The defendant assaulted with a firearm and the charge described the conduct; discharge did not change the nature of the offense	Williams: Statutory amendment removed "discharge" as an element, so charging and instructing on discharge is patent error	No patent error; any erroneous additional element favored defendant and was not structural; review waived absent objection
Whether convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm and domestic abuse aggravated assault violate double jeopardy	State: The statutes require different elements (e.g., household status vs. firearm), so separate convictions are permissible	Williams: The same conduct/evidence (use of a firearm against Kotte) was used to convict on both counts, yielding multiple punishments for the same act	No double jeopardy violation under Blockburger (and under prior "same evidence" approach); statutes require at least one different element, so convictions stand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lafleur, 209 So.3d 927 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2017) (assault with a firearm can be shown by arming and threatening even if discharge occurs)
State v. Kelly, 195 So.3d 449 (La. 2016) (limits on review of jury charges under C.Cr.P. art. 920)
State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (contemporaneous objection rule for jury instructions)
State v. Draughn, 950 So.2d 583 (La. 2007) (waiver by failure to object to jury instruction)
State v. Hongo, 706 So.2d 419 (La. 1997) (distinguishing structural errors from non‑structural errors)
State v. Woods, 787 So.2d 1083 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (analysis of harmlessness and instruction error)
State v. McCasland, 218 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (due process review of erroneous jury instructions)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
State v. Magee, 103 So.3d 285 (La. 2012) (applying Blockburger and discussing same‑evidence test)
State v. Frank, 234 So.3d 27 (La. 2017) (Louisiana Supreme Court abolishing reliance on same‑evidence test in favor of Blockburger)
State v. Williams, 978 So.2d 895 (La. 2008) (explaining the same‑evidence test as focused on proof required to convict)
State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La. 1980) (same‑evidence test depends on proof required, not trial evidence)
Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1990) (rejected same‑conduct double jeopardy standard)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (reinstating Blockburger after overruling Grady)