State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 15 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 38,718-KA.,38,718-KA.
• Citation: 889 So.2d 1237
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Jeremy ANDERSON, Appellant.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

889 So.2d 1237

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Jeremy ANDERSON, Appellant.

No. 38,718-KA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

December 15, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Louis G. Scott, for Appellant.

Jerry L. Jones, District Attorney, Stephen T. Sylvester, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

Before GASKINS, CARAWAY & PEATROSS, JJ.

PEATROSS, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Fourth JDC, Parish of Ouachita, the Honorable Benjamin Jones presiding. Defendant, Jeremy Anderson ("Defendant"), was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 15 years at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence from which he now appeals. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTS

At about midnight on November 20, 1998, Greg Bennett ("Mr.Bennett") and Charles Bush ("Mr.Bush"), who were students at NLU in Monroe, were at a convenience store near campus, sitting in Mr. Bennett's truck. An armed man with a plastic bag over his head approached the truck, pointed a small silver pistol at Mr. Bennett's face and demanded his wallet. When Mr. Bennett initially refused to surrender his wallet, the robber stated, "If you don't give me your wallet, I'm going to blow your brains out." Mr. Bennett handed over his wallet. The two students watched as the robber ran and got into a red or maroon car driven by another man. As the assailants drove away, the students got the license plate number of the car. They immediately drove two blocks to their fraternity house where they called the police.

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Bush were only able to give the Monroe police a limited description of the robber. They described him as a black male¹, approximately six feet, two inches tall, wearing blue jeans and a checkered shirt. A BOLO alert was issued for the car and, a few minutes later, a campus police officer spotted the car driving through campus with three occupants. He conducted a felony stop and arrested the driver, Major Wiley ("Wiley"), and the two occupants, Defendant and John Goods ("Goods").

Monroe Police Department Officer Craig Honeycutt ("Officer Honeycutt") arrived at the scene a few minutes later. He looked into the maroon car and in plain view was a plastic bag with holes in it and a checkered shirt resembling the one described by the students. Officer Honeycutt also saw a chrome-plated pistol sticking out from underneath the backseat. Officer Honeycutt recovered the items from the car and secured them into evidence.

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Bush were brought to the scene where they identified the car, the pistol, the bag and the shirt as belonging to the robber. Mr. Bush stated that he believed Defendant was likely the robber, based on the fact that the robber and Defendant both were wearing blue jeans, and the other two suspects were not. Mr. Bennett was not sure about the clothing of the suspects. Defendant, Goods and Wiley were arrested for armed robbery.

Goods gave a statement to the officers, and later testified at trial, that he, Defendant and Wiley were longtime friends from Franklin Parish. Goods had driven to Monroe for the evening in his stepfather's car and initially went to a friend's house where he was drinking and smoking marijuana. He wound up at Wiley's dorm room, where Defendant was staying overnight. Although not introduced into evidence at trial, a nickname for Defendant was "Snake." The three played video games and continued drinking; and, at this time, Goods testified that Defendant borrowed a pistol from Wiley. He stated that he heard Defendant joking about wanting to go and rob someone.

Goods further testified that Defendant asked to borrow his stepfather's car to go buy more alcohol. Goods refused, but agreed to drive Defendant to the convenience store. He testified that Wiley did not go with them. Once at the convenience store, Goods sat in the car as Defendant stepped out, and, rather than going into the store, pulled out a plastic bag from his pocket with eye and mouth holes cut out of it and put it over his head. He then walked over and pointed the pistol at the students. Goods denied any prior knowledge that Defendant was going to rob anyone and testified that, during the robbery, he kept shouting out to Defendant, "What the f* *k are you doing?" Defendant took two or three dollars from the student and ran back to Goods' car, where he told Goods to shut up and drive away.

Goods testified that the two drove back to Wiley's dorm room, where Defendant joked at length about the robbery and tried to convince Goods and others to change clothes with him. Goods also testified that, at that point, he was scared and wanted to go back to Winnsboro. With Wiley driving, Defendant sitting in the front-passenger seat and Goods in the backseat, the three left the dorm. Goods stated that Wiley was driving because he was too intoxicated to do so. Goods testified that Defendant went with them for fear that he would tell the police about the robbery that had occurred.

As soon as the trio got out of the parking lot, they were followed by the campus police. Goods testified that Defendant threw the gun, the bag and the jacket onto the backseat and told Goods to wipe off fingerprints. Instead, Goods left the items untouched on the backseat. The three were then pulled over by the campus police and arrested.

Defendant was taken to the police station and advised of his Miranda rights by Officer William Tarver ("Officer Tarver"). Defendant initialed a printed Miranda waiver form by each of the rights to indicate that he understood that particular right and signed at the bottom of the form. Officer Tarver asked Defendant if he wanted to tell his version of the story, to which he agreed. Defendant initially made an unrecorded statement. In a later recorded statement, Defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights; however, this time he denied being involved in the robbery and stated that, earlier that evening, he and Goods left Wiley's room to go to the store and had returned without incident. According to this version of the story, Defendant and Goods asked Wiley to give them a ride back to the store. Officer Tarver testified that Defendant never stated that they were leaving to go to Winnsboro.

At trial, Goods admitted to having pending criminal charges against him in Franklin Parish, together with the still-pending charges in the case sub judice. He denied having made or discussed making any deals for leniency in his two pending cases for testimony against Defendant.

Although Wiley did not testify at trial, Officer Tarver testified, without objection, that Wiley denied knowing anything about the robbery, and originally denied that it was his pistol used in the robbery. He further testified that Wiley later changed his story and admitted that the pistol belonged to him.

On May 20, 2002, the trial court denied a motion to quash² by Defendant, finding the court minutes showed that Defendant had signed and filed several motions to continue, which suspended the time limitation. Defendant objected to the trial court's consideration of the minutes and motions in the record which were not introduced into evidence by the State.

Defendant sought a writ application to this court, which was denied. In denying said writ, this court stated:

Applicant's motion to quash the prosecution, founded on La. C. Cr. P. art. 578, was filed prematurely. See State v. Oliver, 34,292 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/01), 786 So.2d 317.

By agreement of Defendant, the trial was continued or reset several times until finally commencing on May 5, 2003. On April 28, 2003, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence seized during his arrest. The trial court deferred the hearing on this motion until May 6, 2003. During the voir dire, the State made the following statement:

By Mr. Sylvester: There's one word, there's one word that always gets my attention this time of year. And I want to see what y'all think about it, snake. That gets y'all attention this time of year in Louisiana?

By the Reporter: Responses by the jurors were um-huh or yes.

By Mr. Sylvester: Anybody here scared of snakes? Okay. Me too. It's not the best word, is it? Wherever you see the word snake, you immediately start looking around?

By A Juror: Yes.

By Mr. Sylvester: And if you know somebody names [sic] snake, you're looking at them like this too, right?

By the Reporter: Jurors laughed.

By Mr. Sylvester: That's a heck of a nickname to have, isn't it? You all, I'm going to wrap this up.

Defendant filed a motion for mistrial, based on the State's use of the term "snake" in the voir dire. Although the motion did not provide any legal argument, Defendant asserted that this was an improper expression of opinion of the facts during the voir dire. The State argued that its use of the term "snake" came from Goods' statement to the police, that Defendant's nickname was "Snake."

The trial court questioned the State regarding its use of this terminology and established that "Snake" turned out to be Defendant. The trial court concluded that Defendant being nicknamed "Snake" was irrelevant to this case and barred any further use of the term. The trial court subsequently denied the motion.

Prior to the end of trial, Defendant filed a request for a special jury instruction regarding the testimony of an accomplice. Defendant asked that the trial court "give the Judge's handbook instruction on the testimony of an accomplice." The trial court denied Defendant's requested instruction, but did insert language about discrediting the testimony of an accomplice into the court's standard language.

Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. The State initially filed a habitual offender bill of information, alleging that, with this conviction, Defendant was a second-felony offender; however, on September 8, 2003,...