259 So. 3d 563
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On April 16, 2009 Robert Howard was shot in his carport and died of a gunshot wound to the neck on May 10, 2009.
- Three witnesses at trial tied Dwayne Williams to the shooting: James Moore (eyewitness identification), Rickell London (driver who testified she drove Williams to the scene and heard him say he wanted to kill someone), and Dagenera Molison (said Williams told her he intended to shoot someone else).
- Moore and London gave prior inconsistent statements and some recanted portions of earlier statements; both received benefits/offers related to cooperation.
- Williams was indicted for second-degree murder, tried by jury in March 2013, convicted by a 10–2 vote, and ultimately sentenced in 2017 to life imprisonment with the benefit of parole.
- Post-trial, defense sought a new trial based on alleged Brady material (Moore later became a suspect in a 2012 murder) and raised claims about juror qualification, unanimity statute constitutionality, confrontation/cross-examination limits, and sentence challenges.
- The appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence, rejected defendant’s claims, but remanded to correct the Uniform Commitment Order to reflect parole eligibility and provided a post-conviction filing advisal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / identity | State: eyewitness testimony (Moore), corroborating testimony (London, Molison) sufficient | Williams: identifications unreliable (inconsistent/recanted), no physical evidence, alternative perpetrators not excluded | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; credibility/resolution of inconsistencies for jury under Jackson standard |
| Brady (withholding impeachment evidence) | State: complied; no material withheld that would have affected outcome | Williams: State withheld that Moore was later a suspect in a 2012 murder, which would impeach Moore and show state leverage | Rejected — withheld investigation was not pending at trial, not material; failure to disclose not prejudicial under Brady/Bagley/Kyles/Strickler |
| Confrontation / cross-examination on juvenile adjudications | State: court properly limited scope; juvenile records generally protected | Williams: denial to cross-examine Moore on juvenile adjudications violated confrontation and prejudiced defense | Rejected — trial court discretion upheld; any error harmless because impeachment cumulative and other corroborating ID evidence strong |
| Juror qualification / unanimity / sentencing challenges | State: procedures followed; statute constitutional; sentence lawful | Williams: one juror was disqualified (felony not pardoned by governor), verdict nonunanimous under Art. 782, sentence violates ex post facto/Miller or is excessive | Rejected — defendant failed to show reasonable diligence to discover juror issue; Art. 782 constitutionality settled; ex post facto/Miller claims rejected; sentence not excessive; remand only to correct commitment order |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (conviction must be supported by evidence that any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence material to guilt or punishment)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (elements of a Brady violation: favorable evidence, suppression, and materiality/prejudice)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders unconstitutional without individualized sentencing)
- Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (standards for sufficiency review in Louisiana appellate practice)