STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DEDRICK LABEE
NO. 2022 KA 0995
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Judgment Rendered: FEB 2 4 2023
Lieu T. Vo Clark Mandeville, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, Dedrick Labee
Scott M. Perrilloux District Attorney Zachary Daniels Assistant District Attorney Livingston, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellee, State of Louisiana
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE, AND MILLER, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
The defendant, Dedrick Labee,1 was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder (count 1), a violation of
FACTS
Kenneth Zahn owns Z Equipment (hereinafter “the shop“) in Hammond that sells and repairs tractors and lawn equipment. His cousin, Wayne Bourliea, Jr., worked at the shop. According to the testimony of Barbara Labee, the defendant‘s ex-sister-in-law, and Kenneth, Barbara brought her mower to the shop for repairs on June 25, 2020. Some of the repairs were for blades and a tube for a front tire. Wayne did the repairs and prepared the work order ticket. Kenneth testified that Barbara paid a $45 deposit with an outstanding balance of $92.16. On July 17, 2020, Barbara paid the balance for the repairs and the mower was picked up. Behind his counter, Kenneth kept a gun inside a gun bag with the grip of the gun protruding outside of the bag.
Lawrence Labee, IV, the defendant‘s nephew, testified that on July 29, 2020, the day of the incident, he spoke to the defendant several times on the phone. Lawrence, who was in Texas at the time, indicated the defendant told him that on the morning of July 29, the defendant went to the shop to discuss a price discrepancy over the repairs to Barbara‘s mower. The defendant and the man behind the counter (Wayne) began arguing about the receipt. As the argument escalated, the defendant felt his life was in danger. The defendant produced a gun and shot Wayne several times. The defendant left the shop then returned shortly thereafter and took Wayne‘s cell phone. Lawrence informed the police of the shooting.2
Other than the defendant, there was no eyewitness to the shooting. The defendant used his estranged wife‘s truck to drive to the shop. After the defendant shot and killed Wayne, he left the shop, then returned shortly thereafter. When he left the shop the second time, he dropped the truck off at his wife‘s place of employment, then called his nephew, Brennen Labee, to pick him up and bring him home. The defendant did not contact the police that day. The following day, however, the defendant communicated with Detective Wiley Foster, whom the defendant knew, and turned himself in. The gun the defendant used to kill Wayne was never found. No cash was taken from the register or safe in the shop.
The defendant testified at trial, giving his version of events that led to the shooting of Wayne. The defendant went with Brennen to the shop in June of 2020 to have the tire and blades repaired on Barbara‘s mower. The defendant paid $15 for the tire repair,3 but did not tell Barbara this. When Barbara got the mower back, the tire was still flat and the defendant noted on Barbara‘s receipt that she had been charged for the tire repair. The defendant went to the shop alone on July 20, 2020, to discuss the overcharge for repairs. The defendant approached the counter and told Wayne that he had a dispute with the receipt. The defendant showed Wayne the receipt. While Wayne agreed he had written that receipt, the defendant told Wayne there was another receipt. They began to argue. When the defendant told Wayne there was an extra charge on the receipt, Wayne got agitated and began shaking and banging on the counter. Wayne told the defendant he was a “lying [n----r.]” When the defendant told Wayne the tire was not even fixed, Wayne became even more irate and told the defendant, “I‘m going to kill your black ass.”
Wayne then made a motion and went down behind the counter. The defendant, having seen people who carry guns on their ankles, thought that Wayne was going for a gun around his ankle. The defendant retrieved a gun from a holster in his waistband and shot at Wayne several times. While shooting, the defendant could not see Wayne‘s face, but shot Wayne as he was bent over. The defendant then grabbed Wayne‘s phone and ran out the store. After driving away in the truck, the defendant returned to the shop and retrieved his holster that had fallen near the shop door. The defendant then dropped the truck off to his wife and called Brennen to pick him up.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1 AND 2
In these related assignments of error, the defendant argues, respectively, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of second degree murder because the State failed to prove he did not act in self-defense; and the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates Due Process. See
DISCUSSION
Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.
In the instant case, the defendant does not deny that he shot and killed Wayne. He contends, rather, that the homicide was justifiable because he acted in self-defense. According to the defendant, when Wayne bent over behind counter, the defendant thought that Wayne was retrieving a gun.
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
When a defendant in a homicide prosecution claims self-defense, the State
The defendant testified that as the argument escalated between him and Wayne in the shop, Wayne told him that he was going to kill him. The defendant further indicated that when Wayne bent over, the defendant thought Wayne was retrieving a gun holstered on his ankle; the defendant therefore leaned over the counter and shot Wayne several times. Based on the defendant‘s testimony, it appears he had been in the shop only twice—once when he spoke to Kenneth and the other time when he disputed the charge with Wayne. Accordingly, it seems the defendant did not know Wayne before meeting him on the day of the shooting and nothing in the defendant‘s own testimony suggested he was even aware there was a gun behind the counter. Moreover, after the shooting, the gun was found still holstered in the zip bag it had been originally placed in by the owner. Wayne had no weapon in his hand before or after he was shot.
Wayne‘s body was found face-down behind the counter. He was shot four times in the back of his body and once in the right side of his chest. The shots to the back of the body were to the right arm, upper back, lower back, and the back-right side of his head. All four of these wounds had stippling which, according to Dr. Michael Defatta who performed the autopsy, meant the shooting was at a relatively close range, or from one foot to about three-and-one-half feet away. The wound to the right side of Wayne‘s chest did not have stippling, which indicated the shooting was from a greater distance than the four shots to the back of the body. Accordingly, if the defendant‘s version of events is believed regarding Wayne‘s actions before he was shot, the jury could have rationally concluded that, from a distance, the defendant first shot Wayne in the chest.4 As the defendant closed in on Wayne to shoot him again, Wayne ducked behind the counter to avoid being shot again. While Wayne was crouched behind the counter (clearly not to get a gun strapped to his ankle), the defendant leaned over the counter and shot him several more times in the back of his body. According to the defendant, Wayne was bent down for twenty to thirty seconds. In any event, the defendant shot Wayne four times in the back of his body, including in the back of the head. Defendant‘s response to Wayne‘s alleged agitation and threat to kill the defendant, was excessive and unnecessary. See State v. Mincey, 2008-1315 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615-16.
Accordingly, the jury could have reasonably found that the fatal force used by the defendant was not reasonable under the circumstances. There was no evidence that Wayne was armed or had armed himself with any weapon and, as such, the defendant could not have reasonably believed it was necessary to shoot and kill Wayne
In finding the defendant guilty, it is clear the jury rejected the claim of self-defense and concluded that the use of deadly force under the particular facts of this case was neither reasonable nor necessary. Moreover, the defendant‘s actions in failing to report the shooting and fleeing from the scene are not consistent with a theory of self-defense. See State v. Emanuel-Dunn, 2003-0550 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/7/03), 868 So.2d 75, 80, writ denied, 2004-0339 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 829; State v. Wallace, 612 So.2d 183, 191 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1992), writ denied, 614 So.2d 1253 (La. 1993). Flight following an offense reasonably raises the inference of a “guilty mind.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 n.4 (La. 1984).
While the defendant did contact a police officer whom he knew the following day, the defendant did nothing moments after shooting Wayne to assist him or to call for help. Instead, the defendant fled the shop, then returned minutes later either to take Wayne‘s phone or to retrieve his gun holster he had dropped while leaving the shop. When asked why he went back to get his holster, the defendant responded because his fingerprints were on it. The defendant then drove away from the shop and tossed Wayne‘s phone out of his window. Further, the gun the defendant used to kill Wayne was never found. According to the defendant, he dismantled the gun, banged it on the concrete, and threw it in the woods.
The jury can accept or reject the testimony of any witness. To resolve conflicting testimony relative to factual matters, the jury must make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence. Eby, 248 So.3d at 426. See State v. Mire, 2014-2295 (La. 1/27/16), 269 So.3d 698, 700-01 (per curiam). The Jackson standard of review does not permit a reviewing court to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for the factfinder‘s, assess the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh evidence. See State v. McGhee, 2015-2140 (La. 6/29/17), 223 So.3d 1136, 1137 (per curiam); State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So.3d 417, 422 (per curiam). Thus, in the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, one witness‘s testimony, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Higgins, 2003-1980 (La. 4/1/05), 898 So.2d 1219, 1226, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 883 (2005). An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the factfinder and thereby overturning a verdict based on an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. Eby, 248 So.3d at 426-27.
When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is
After a thorough review of the record, we find that the evidence supports the jury‘s guilty verdict. We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of the second degree murder of Wayne Bourliea, Jr. See Calloway, 1 So.3d at 418.
We find the trial court did not err in denying the motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, these assignments of error are without merit.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.