State v. HamiltonState v. Hamilton
Jerry Lee Hamilton (defendant) was charged by bill of information with aggravated burglary.
1. The trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.
2. The trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.
3. The verdict is not supported by the evidence.
4. The trial court imposed an excessive sentence.
5. The trial court erred in failing to comply with
La.C.Cr.Pro. art. 894.1 .
Defendant was charged with the aggravated burglary of his neighbor‘s home. At trial the victim testified that she was asleep in the same bed with her two сhildren, when she was awakened at approximately 4:00 a.m. by the sound of breaking glass. Upon investigating the disturbance, she found that a glass door in her living room had been broken. She placed a telephone call to her mothеr and told her what had happened, and then called the police. The victim went into the bathroom and, on hearing a noise, turned to see defendant coming into the bathroom behind her. He asked her for money. When she told him thаt she had none, he knocked her into the bathtub and began to beat her. The victim‘s eight year old son was awakened by her screaming, and ran to the telephone to summon help. Defendant grabbed the telephone from the bоy and beat him about the head with his hand. When the child‘s mother tried to intervene, he beat her about the head, threw her on the bed, and bit her external genitalia. The victim kicked defendant, knocking him over a heater, and ran to a neighbоr‘s house. Shortly thereafter she flagged a passing police car and reported the incident. She testified that the lights were on in the bathroom and that she recognized defendant as “the man who stayed across the street with а girl named Sandra.” On information supplied by the victim, the police apprehended defendant at his home. His face and hands were freshly cut and still bleeding. The victim identified him as the man who had attacked her, and he was arrested at that time. She positively identified defendant in court.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the failure by the state to comply with a defense discovery motion.
Prior to trial, defendant had requested notification of any statements he was alleged to have made and the contents. Additionally, he requested the results of any scientific tests and experiments conducted in connection with the case. The state responded that no statements of any kind had been made by defendant, and the office of the district attorney had no knowledge of any scientific tests that had been conducted.
At trial, Detective Sharon Laird testified that defendant hаd made a brief statement to her with regard to the cuts and blood on his body at the time of his arrest, to the effect that he had sustained the scratches at work and had broken his hip falling down on his way home from a party the previous night. The statement had been included in her report. She further testified that several fingerprints had been removed from the glass and sent to be analyzed. Additionally, traces of blood found on the broken glass were sent to be typed. Defendant moved for a mistrial. The state responded that the reports received by the district attorney were incomplete and did not include the report of Detective Laird. Therefore, the answers provided in response to defendant‘s motion were based on the information which was in the State‘s file. The state added that there was no intention to introduce the statement or results of the blood tests at trial. The court denied the motion.
Defendant now argues that he was prejudiced by the failure of the state to comply with
The dеfendant had told Detective Laird that he received cuts and scratches in a fight at work. At trial he denied the existence of any cuts and scratches. Defendant now argues that the state was able to impeach his testimony оn cross-examination because the court was aware of the existence and contents of a prior contradictory statement, and that, with notification, the defense might have undertaken a different strategy. Actually, defendant was notified. At a preliminary examination five months before trial Detective Laird testified to defendant‘s excuse for the cuts and scratches. Additionally, at trial the state did not try to introduce the statements. The contents camе out only on defendant‘s attempt to secure a mistrial by verifying with Detective Laird that there was a statement. Also, under defendant‘s theory that there were no cuts and scratches the statement was inculpatory. Since the state did not use the inculpatory statement at trial, they were not required to submit it to discovery.
In contrast to defendant‘s assertion the record reveals that the victim positively identified defendant as thе intruder no less than 11 times at trial and gave express reasons for her ability to recognize him. She also identified him immediately after the offense. In his reasons for denying the mistrial the court noted that even if the fingerprints and blood stains did not еstablish that defendant was the man who had broken the window, the victim‘s testimony positively identified him as the man who had attacked her, and this testimony would override the alleged exculpatory test results. In order to constitute reversible errоr the undisclosed exculpatory evidence would have to create a reasonable doubt that would not otherwise exist in the context of the whole record. State v. Johnson, 426 So.2d 95 (La.1983). From what the trial judge stated this obviously would not have been the case.
In any event, the state did not use the test results. Therefore, defendant would be entitled to them only if they were, in fact, exculpatory.
This assignment of error has no merit.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR TWO AND THREE:
In these assignments of error, defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence. In assignment of error number two, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. In assignment of error number three, defendant alleges that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
The sole basis for these arguments is the conflict between the testimony of the victim and the defendant. The victim testified that she thought the intruder‘s hair was in plaits, that he was clean-shaven, and that his skin was a little lighter than it appeared in court. Defendant testified that on the date in question his hair was styled in a Jheri curl, he had a thick beard and mustache, and his skin color was the same. He argues now that in view of the conflict in the testimonies and the fact that the confrontation was made at four a.m. in a darkened house, it is rеasonable that the victim was mistaken in her identification. Consequently, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the perpetrator of the offense.
The trier of fact may acсept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, and conflicting testimony does not constitute insufficient evidence of the crime. State v. Sensley, 460 So.2d 692 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1374 (La.1985). The victim never waivered in her identification of defendant. The testimony of the victim is suffiсient to establish the elements of an offense. State v. Johnson, 461 So.2d 1273 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984). The reliability of the victim‘s testimony is a matter of weight of the evidence. The determination of the weight to be given evidence is a question of fact for the trier of fact, and is not subject to appellate review. Johnson, 461 So.2d at 1277. The trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal. These assignments of error have no merit.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR FOUR AND FIVE:
In assignment of error number four, defendant argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. In assignment of error number five, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to comply with the sentencing guidelines of
The maximum sentence which the trial court can impose for a conviction of aggravаted burglary is imprisonment at hard labor for thirty years.
For the foregoing reasons the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.