STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL BROOKS
NO. 2023 KA 1095
COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
NOV 13 2024
Judgment Rendered:
*****
Hillar C. Moore, III District Attorney Jessica Fogan Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Attorneys for Appellee, State of Louisiana
Lieu T. Vo Clark Louisiana Appellate Project Mandeville, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, Michael Brooks
*****
BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.
The defendant, Michael Brooks, was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder (сount one), in violation of
FACTS
Around 10:49 p.m. on January 28, 2021, officers with the Baton Rouge Police Department (“BRPD“) responded to a Shot Spotter alert1 at a vacant apartment complex near 5021 McClelland Drive. Officers located a vehicle in the parking lot and discovered the victim, twenty-one-year-old Marquell Wyatt (“Wyatt“), nearby with fatal gunshot wounds. The defendant was developed as a suspect and subsequently arrested after Wyatt‘s friends described his tumultuous, clandestine relationship with the defendant.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In his sole assignment of error, the defendant asserts the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to supрort his second degree murder conviction. Specifically, the defendant suggests the shooting was committed in sudden passion and in the heat of blood such that the responsive verdict of manslaughter should be entered. He neither contests his identity as the shooter, nor does he contest the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to his obstruction of justice conviction.
A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due process. See
Second degrеe murder is defined, in pertinent part, as a killing committed “[w]hen the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm[.]”
The responsive verdict of manslaughter is defined, in pertinent part, as:
A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender‘s blood had actually cooled, or that an average person‘s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed[.]
The existence of “sudden passion” and “heat of blood” are not elements of the offense but, rather, are mitigating factors that the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Dearmas, 2022-0494 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/4/22), 356 So.3d 9, 14, writ denied, 2022-01839 (La. 5/23/23), 360 So.3d 1254; Mellion, 342 So.3d at 45. If a person unreasonably permits his impulse and passion to obscure his judgment, he will be fully responsible for the consequences of his act. Mellion, 342 So.3d at 48. Provocation and timе for cooling off are determinations made by the fact finder under the standard of the average or ordinary person with ordinary self-control. Dearmas, 356 So.3d at 15. Thus, an appellate court must determine whether a rational trier of fact, upon reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the defendant did not establish the mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Jacquot, 2023-1254 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/27/24), 2024 WL 3199218, *3.
In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, one witness‘s testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. Provocation testimony is an issue of credibility. Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. Accordingly, on appeal, this court will not re-assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder‘s determination of guilt. Id.
At trial, Leonda Guerin (“Leonda“), Wyatt‘s friend, testified that Wyatt and the defendant were in a romantic relationship at the time of his death.2 Leonda said Wyatt openly identified as a gay man, but the defendant was closeted and did not want people to know he was gay. Leonda testified, on the day of the incident, she
Miazokki Wyatt (“Miazokki“), Wyatt‘s mother, testified that Wyatt asked her to borrow a vehicle to drive to the store around 10:30 p.m. on the night of the incident. Miazokki said Wyatt was supposed to come right back, and after about fifteen minutes, she began calling and texting him but received no response. Miazokki said she checked Wyatt‘s location on her phone and saw he was on
McClelland Drive, which was two or three miles from their house. Miazokki testified she drove to Wyatt‘s location, and when she arrived, the police and coroner were already there. After she provided the police with Wyatt‘s description, she was notified of his death. Miazokki testified she then called Leonda and asked hеr, “Who killed my son?” According to Miazokki, Leonda immediately provided the defendant‘s name. Miazokki testified she did not know Wyatt and the defendant were romantically involved at that time.
Falonda Guerin (“Falonda“), Leonda‘s sister and Wyatt‘s friend, testified she got a phone call from Wyatt at 10:35 p.m. the night of his murder. Falonda said Wyatt told her he was driving to meet the defendant to get a phone back. While she was on the phone with Wyatt, he said the defendant was calling him and Falonda hung up the phone. Falonda testified she checked Wyatt‘s location at about 10:37 p.m. and saw he was near McClelland Drive in Brookstown.
Detective Reese Jenkins, a homicide detective with the BRPD, was the lead investigator in the case. Detective Jenkins testified the police recovered eleven shell casings in the immediate vicinity of Wyatt‘s body, indicating to him that Wyatt was “dropped in [his] tracks” and the perpetrator continued shooting Wyatt after he fell down. Detective Jenkins testified the killing looked personal due to the number of shots fired, the fact Wyatt‘s cell phone was not taken, and the absence of any signs of a struggle. According to Detective Jenkins, had Wyatt been killed during a robbery, his cell phone would have been stolen and there would have been no reason for the overkill.
Detective Jenkins said he developed the defendant as a potential suspect soon after he interviewed the Guerin sisters and learned of Wyatt‘s tumultuous on-again, off-again relationship with the defendant. Detective Jenkins testified hе was provided with a timeline of Wyatt‘s activity preceding the murder, which he corroborated with cell phone records. Cell phone records showed at 10:35 p.m.,
Falonda called Wyatt and spoke on the phone for a few minutes until Wyatt received a call from a prepaid phone number. Detective Jenkins concluded the prepaid phone number was
On February 1, 2021, Detective Jenkins drafted and obtained a warrant for the defendant‘s arrest. Detective Jenkins testified before he executed the arrest warrant, he was notified someone placed a 911 call claiming the defendant was armed, wanted for murder, and at the caller‘s house. The house where the defendant was arrested was a seven-minute walk from the vacant apartment complex where Wyatt was killed. During a search of the house, police recovered ammunition that matched the brands of shell casings found at the crime scene. Detective Jenkins also interviewed the defendant‘s girlfriend, and according to Detective Jenkins, the defendant‘s girlfriend corroborated Leonda‘s statement that Leonda delivered a phone to the defendant.
After being advised of and waiving his Miranda4 rights, the defendant provided a statement to the police. According to the defendant, he knew Wyatt and had “messed with him” two years earlier. The defendant claimed Wyatt tried to “out” him on social media and posted videos of the two engaging in sexual acts. The defendant said, as a result, he was committed to a mental hospital. He denied being in a romantic relationship with Wyatt but said they were amicable and still talked. The defendant said on the day of Wyatt‘s murder, Leonda drove to his house in Brookstown and tried to give him a phone. He said he did not see Wyatt
in the vehicle and he did not take the phone because his girlfriend was outside. The defendant denied mеeting Wyatt afterwards, and he said he did not kill Wyatt. According to the defendant, Wyatt had a lot of enemies in Brookstown.
Arlisha Brooks (“Brooks“), the defendant‘s sister, testified she called 911 on February 2, 2021. According to Brooks, the defendant told her he killed “50 Bands” who she said was “[s]ome dude that like[s] dudes.”5 Brooks testified it was her understanding “50 Bands” was killed at the abandoned apartments on McClelland Drive. In the 911 call, which was published to the jury, Brooks said her “neighbor,” Michael Brooks, was “the man who killed the man on McClelland,” and she said he was in her house, armed with a handgun. Brooks, who identified herself as “Denisha Williams” in the call, said she saw a picture on Instagram that indicated the defendant killed Wyatt.
Dr. William “Beau” Clark, the coroner of East Baton Rouge Parish, was accepted as an exрert in emergency medicine and testified regarding Wyatt‘s autopsy. The autopsy report indicated Wyatt suffered nineteen gunshot wounds, and Dr. Clark testified several of the gunshot wounds were fatal.
On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence supported a verdict of manslaughter as the killing was committed in the heat of passion caused by provocation sufficient tо deprive an average person of his self-control
The record supports the jury‘s second degree murder verdict. Though mostly circumstantial, the evidence showed the defendant met Wyatt at the vacant
apartment complex on McClelland Drive and killed him. Testimony indicated the defendant was angry at Wyatt for giving him the phone in front of his girlfriend and brother as it threatened to reveal their secret homosexual relationship. The Guerin sisters testified Wyatt left shortly before his death to meet the defendant to retrieve the phone. The jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant killed Wyatt from the testimony and cell phone records showing the defendant called Wyatt mere minutes before the Shot Spotter alert notified the police of the gunshots. The defendant fired at leаst nineteen shots and disposed of his gun after fleeing the scene, which was a seven-minute walk from his house. Flight following an offense reasonably raises the inference of a “guilty mind.” State v. Rosario-Colon, 2019-0406 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/27/19), 289 So.3d 126, 135, writ denied, 2019-01806 (La. 1/28/20), 291 So.3d 1055, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 2727, 206 L.Ed.2d 859 (2020). Further, Brooks testified the defendant confessed to killing Wyatt.
A reduction of second degree murder to manslaughter requires the killing be committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection.
however offensive or insulting, will not reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter. See Mellion, 342 So.3d at 47. Moreover, the number of gunshot wounds is not necessarily indicative of a killing committed in sudden passion or heat of blood. Id. at 46.
The jury‘s verdict reflects it clearly found the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. Dearmas, 356 So.3d at 18; Mellion, 342 So.3d at 47-48. We find such determination was not irrational based on the evidence. An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the trier of fact and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. See State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So.3d 417, 418 (per curiam). Viewing the evidence in the light mоst favorable to the prosecution, we find a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in sudden
PATENT ERROR
Pursuant to
The transcript reflects after the trial court imposed the defendant‘s sentences, it advised he had “two years to apply for post conviction relief[.]”6 The prescriptive period for filing an application for post-conviction relief is two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence become final under the provisions of
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant‘s convictions and sentences.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
11