State v. FordState v. Ford
Larry Ford appeals his conviction of second degree murder of his girlfriend, Evelyn Green. He contends that the district court should have entered a judgment of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in response to his motion for рost-verdict judgment of acquittal and alternatively, a new trial. Defendant‘s motions were based on the contention that the State failed to рrove specific intent, an essential element of second degree murder.
Ford dated the victim for more than three years. They did not marry but сonceived a child born under the name of Tadashia Danielle. Ford contends that a dispute over the care and custody of two-year-old Tadashia brought about the “sudden passion” or “heat of blood” that provoked the shooting and negated specific intent.1 Our scopе of evidentiary review is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. We find that the jury did not abuse its function and affirm the conviction.
FACTS
On November 12, 1983, Fоrd visited a Vivian grocery store owned by his ex-employer from whom he borrowed $150 to pay off some debts.
Ford later traveled to Plain Dealing where he used some of the money to purchase a .22 caliber pistol and a box of shells at Higdon‘s Short Stop Grocery. Ford testified that Ms. Green drove him to the store and waited outside in her car. He said he had never before owned a gun and testified that he needed one for “prоtection” from a group of Plain Dealing men that had been calling him a Vivian “river rat.” Ms. Green then went to her job at Pizza Hut in Vivian. Ford spent that night with friends.
The nеxt day, with the gun inside his pants, Ford walked into the Vivian Pizza Hut while Ms. Green was working her Sunday afternoon shift. The two were observed
Ford then noticed customers approaching the restaurant entrance. He shouted for them to get back. The customer in the restaurant motioned for a man outside to telephone policе. One employee testified that Ford then raised the gun into the air and said, “anyone else?” Ford then put the gun to his neck and fired one shot. Ms. Green died of her wounds. Ford recovered after hospital confinement.
Following his conviction, Ford moved for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and alternatively, for a new trial. The standard of review under each motion, however, is different. See
POST VERDICT JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL V. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
The defendant may move for a post verdiсt judgment of acquittal following the verdict. A motion for a post verdict judgment of acquittal must be made and disposed of before sentence.
CCrP Art. 821(A)
If the court finds that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, supports only a conviction of a lesser included responsive offense, the court, in lieu of granting a post verdict judgment of acquittal, may modify the verdict and render a judgment of conviction on the lesser included responsive offense.
CCrP Art. 821(C)
The thrust of Ford‘s argument for post verdict acquittal under
Ford did not separately brief his assertion that the trial court shоuld have granted a new trial because the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.
The scope of review in these situations poses some dilemma until the Official Revision Comment following
Since the abolition of the directed verdict in jury cases, the Supreme Court has recognized its authority to reverse convictions and dismiss the charges if the evidence does not support the conviction.
...
The test on appeal to determine the “sufficiency” of evidence is no longer the “total lack of evidence” test. [
CCrP Art. 851(1) ] The test now is whether a reasonable fact finder must have a reasonable doubt.... The test incorporated as the standard for judgments of acquittal defers to the jury‘s finding by requiring that the evidence be viewed in a light most favоrable to the state. However, if the evidence is legally insufficient the verdict must be set aside and either a modified verdict or a judgment of acquittal must be entered....The trial court or appellate court may modify the jury‘s verdict if the verdict is not supported by the evidence but a lesser included responsive verdict would be supported....
The district attorney may seek review of a post verdict judgment of acquittal or a judgment mоdifying a verdict. Such
review does not violate double jeopardy because if the appellate court merely reinstates the jury‘s verdiсt no new trial is necessary. * * *
Citations omitted. Bracketed material supplied. See also Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982), noted at 43 La.L.R. 1061;
LSA-Const. Art. 5, § 10(B) ; State v. Ruple, 426 So.2d 249 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983), concurring opinion.
Where there is no legal ground for a new trial, the trial court may grant a new trial where the ends of justice may be servеd.
Professor Joseph suggests that the adoption of Jackson v. Virginia standard does not create a new standard in circumvention of our оwn constitutional mandate, but rather it “expands the understanding of the circumstances under which inadequate factual support for the jury‘s verdict becomes a reviewable question of law.” Joseph, Developments in the Law, 1982-1983: Postconviction Procedure, 44 L.L.R. 447 at p. 481. See also State v. Mathews, 375 So.2d 1165 (La.1979), and State v. Byrd, supra.
Our review of the record mоst favorably to the prosecution convinces us that any rational trier of fact could have found that Ford had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on Ms. Green.
Specific intent under
Ford did not own a gun until he purchased the pistol hours before the homicide. Eyewitnesses testified about the details of how defendant shot Ms. Greеn two times. The jury obviously did not believe Ford‘s version of how and why he fired the shots.
We find no error in the trial court‘s rulings of which Ford complains. Ford‘s convictiоn is supported by the record and is AFFIRMED.