State v. Boys
| Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-KA-0675, NO. 2017-K-0866, NO. 2017-K-0867, NO. 2018-K-0217, NO. 2018-K-0241,2019-KA-0675 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Travis BOYS State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
321 So.3d 1087
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Travis BOYS
State of Louisiana
v.
Travis Boys
State of Louisiana
v.
Travis Boys
State of Louisiana
v.
Travis Boys
State of Louisiana
v.
Travis Boys
NO. 2019-KA-0675
NO. 2017-K-0866
NO. 2017-K-0867
NO. 2018-K-0217
NO. 2018-K-0241
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 26, 2021
Jason Rogers Williams, District Attorney, Orleans Parish, G. Benjamin Cohen, Chief of Appeals, David B. LeBlanc, Assistant District Attorney, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE
Anna K. VanCleave, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06515, Emily Washington, Hannah Lomers-Johnson, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, 4400 S. Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Dale N. Atkins )
Judge Daniel L. Dysart
Defendant, Travis Boys, was convicted by a unanimous jury of the first-degree murder of Officer Daryle Holloway, a twenty-plus-year veteran of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). Mr. Boys was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
At trial, there was no question that Mr. Boys killed Officer Holloway. At the time of his death, Officer Holloway had been wearing a body camera, which he activated after Mr. Boys was placed in the back seat of his police vehicle. The body camera clearly recorded his murder, leaving no doubt that Officer Holloway's death was at Mr. Boys’ hands. Officer Holloway's body camera footage depicts Officer Holloway driving the vehicle, when a loud bang is heard. Although Officer Holloway's body camera fell off at that point, it captured a struggle over a firearm between Officer Holloway and Mr. Boys. While the footage of the struggle only captured their arms, Mr. Boys is heard repeatedly stating, "let me out before you kill yourself." Mr. Boys can next be seen in the front of the police car, having climbed through the partition, his hands handcuffed in front and with a firearm in his hand. The footage then
shows Mr. Boys opening the front passenger-side door and fleeing the scene.
Mr. Boys has never argued that he did not kill Officer Holloway. He has, however, appealed his conviction and sentence, raising numerous assignments of error, which he maintains require a reversal of his conviction.
Having carefully reviewed the record of this matter, we find no merit to any of Mr. Boys’ assignments of error. We therefore affirm Mr. Boys’ conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the early morning hours of June 20, 2015, the NOPD received a 911 call from Mr. Boys’ wife, Ava Boys, who reported that Mr. Boys had fired a gun at her, and requested that the police come and remove Mr. Boys from their residence. Former NOPD Officer Wardell Johnson1 responded to the call and arrived at the Boys’ residence around 4:45 a.m. Mr. Johnson arrested Mr. Boys and transported him to the Fifth District police station. Mr. Boys remained in the back seat of Mr. Johnson's police vehicle until around 8:00 a.m., while Mr. Johnson completed the necessary paperwork. Because Mr. Johnson's shift had ended, Officer Holloway offered to transport Mr. Boys to jail. It was during that transport that Mr. Boys pulled out a hidden gun that had not been discovered during his arrest and shot Officer Holloway. The struggle over the weapon then ensued and Mr. Boys made his escape. Mr. Boys was arrested the following day.
On June 29, 2015, the State indicted Mr. Boys for the first degree murder of Officer Holloway, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30. Mr. Boys initially pled not guilty; however, he later changed his plea to not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
Pursuant to Mr. Boys’ request for a sanity commission, the trial court appointed Dr. Rafael Salcedo, a forensic psychologist, and Dr. Richard Richoux, a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. James McConville, a forensic psychiatrist, was retained by Mr. Boys. The first of three competency hearings took place on September 21, 2017 (Competency Hearing I). After Competency Hearing I, the trial court found Mr. Boys competent to stand trial.
Mr. Boys’ first trial date was October 18, 2017. The trial was halted during voir dire when Mr. Boys ingested and smeared himself with feces ("the fecal incident").2 A second competency hearing then occurred on October 19, 2017 (Competency Hearing II). After hearing testimony from Dr. Richoux, Dr. Sarah Deland, a forensic psychiatrist retained by Mr. Boys after the fecal incident, and Dr. McConville, the trial court determined that Mr. Boys was incompetent and remanded him to the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (ELMHS) for evaluation.3
After Mr. Boys was released from the ELMHS, a third competency hearing was held on November 30, 2017 (Competency Hearing III). Mental health professionals from ELMHS, Dr. John Thompson, Dr. Laura Brown, and Dr. Sankey Vyat testified
that Mr. Boys was competent.4 Defense expert, Dr. McConville, indicated his opinion that Mr. Boys was incompetent. At the hearing's conclusion, the trial court found Mr. Boys competent to stand trial.
Trial commenced on March 14, 2018. During the voir dire phase of trial, and after a jury, including alternates, had been selected from three voir dire panels, Mr. Boys lodged a challenge pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), maintaining that the State disproportionately used its peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors. The trial court denied the Batson challenge and the trial proceeded.
On March 24, 2018, the jury unanimously found Mr. Boys guilty as charged. Mr. Boys sought, and was denied, a new trial. Sentencing delays were then waived and the trial court sentenced Mr. Boys to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Mr. Boys’ motion to reconsider sentence was denied.
This appeal followed.
ERRORS PATENT
As is our practice, we have reviewed the record for errors patent.5 Our review reveals no errors patent on the face of the record.6
We now turn to assignments of error Mr. Boys raises in this appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge by failing to find a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the State's jury selection; (2) the State's use of racially inflammatory language and themes deprived Mr. Boys of a fair trial; (3) the State impermissibly elicited other crimes evidence; (4) the trial court erred in issuing a jury instruction on other crimes evidence; (5) the State denigrated defense counsel in violation of Mr. Boys’ right to a fair trial; (6) the State made improper remarks during its closing argument; (7) the trial court erred in finding Mr. Boys competent to stand trial; (8) the trial court erred in permitting the court-appointed sanity commission members to testify about statements made in their competency evaluation of Mr. Boys, in violation of the his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, where Mr. Boys had been promised that such statements could not be used against him; (9) the trial court erred in permitting scientifically unsound testimony from the State's experts regarding Mr. Boys’ intellectual disability; (10) the trial court erred in permitting the State's experts to testify about their competency evaluation findings where defense counsel had relied on the trial court's pre-trial ruling that such testimony was inadmissible; (11) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Mr. Boys’ mental illness; (12) the "police-dominated atmosphere" violated Mr. Boys’ right to a fair trial; (13) the trial court's imposition of a life sentence for an intellectually disabled Mr. Boys was constitutionally excessive; and (14) cumulative errors require reversal.
Because some of these issues are interrelated, those issues will be addressed together.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Boys maintains that the trial court improperly denied his Batson challenge by
failing to find that he demonstrated a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the State's jury selection. He advances the following two arguments in support of his position: (1) the State "exercised eight of their eleven peremptory strikes—seventy-three percent—against available Black jurors," reducing black representation from the venire pool to the seated jury by twenty-five percent; and (2) potential black jurors peremptorily struck by the State provided similar answers to seated white jurors, suggesting that they were struck on the basis of race.
The record reflects that, following voir dire and the impaneling of the jury—including three alternates—Mr. Boys lodged a Batson challenge stating the following:
The State exercised [sic] of its 11 peremptorys [sic] and 3 alternate peremptorys[sic], they exercised 8 peremptorys [sic] against African-American jurors, or only 4 against white jurors....
If you actually exclude the alternate jurors, it is 8
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doyle
..., 52,743 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/26/19), 277 So.3d 874, 881, writ denied , 19-1320 (La. 10/8/19), 280 So.3d 171 ; State v. Boys , 19-0675 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21), 321 So.3d 1087.19 For example, on December 14, 2009, the defendant made a pro se motion for substitution of counsel in which he arg......
-
Sanders v. City of Winnfield
... ... The remaining negligence claims under state tort law were remanded to the district court. The petition was subsequently amended to exclusively assert a claim of negligence against the City for ... ...
-
State v. Session
... ... See State v. Sims , 426 So.2d 148, 155 (La. 1983) ("It is well settled that a new basis for an objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."); see also State v. Boys , 2019-0675, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21), 321 So.3d 1087, 1100. In any event, because defendant opened the door, an objection based on hearsay would no longer appear viable. State v. Hankton , 1996-1538 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/16/98), 719 So.2d 546, 550 ; State v. Moseley , 587 So.2d 46, 55-56 ... ...
-
State v. Williams
... ... "Once ... the defense opens the door in cross-examination on a subject ... it becomes a proper subject for redirect ... The defense may ... not approach a prohibited area ... and then close the door ... to clarification by the State." State v. Boys, ... 19-0675, p. 24 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21), 321 So.3d 1087, ... 1107, writ denied, 21-00909 (La. 11/10/21), 326 ... So.3d 1245, cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1672, ___U.S ... ___, 212 L.Ed.2d 580; (2022) (internal citations omitted); ... see also La. C.E. art. 611(D) ... ...