State v. Dickerson

Decision Date04 June 2014
Docket NumberNo. 14–170.,14–170.
Citation140 So.3d 904
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Jon DICKERSON.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John Foster DeRosier, District Attorney—14th Judicial District, Karen C. McLellan, Assistant District Attorney—14th Judicial District, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiff/AppelleeState of Louisiana.

Edward Kelly Bauman, Louisiana Appellate Project, Lake Charles, LA, Defendant/AppellantJon Dickerson.

Jon Dickerson, General Delivery, Louisiana State Prison, Angola, LA.

Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, BILLY HOWARD EZELL, and SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judges.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Between the evening of March 9, 2009 and the morning of March 10, 2009, the victim, Darrell Schaub, died as a result of having his throat cut. On March 11, 2009, Defendant, Jon Talbert Dickerson, was arrested for his involvement in a domestic disturbance. After he was booked, several credit cards belonging to the victim were found in Defendant's pocket. Following an investigation to locate the owner of the credit cards, the victim's body was discovered on March 16, 2009, behind the Parkway Motel in DeQuincy, Louisiana. Defendant was subsequently charged with second degree murder. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant appeals, contending that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in denying his request to ascertain the identities of two confidential informants involved in the case. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. However, we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to provide Defendant with proper written notice of the prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8.

I.ISSUES

We shall consider whether:

(1) there was insufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, for a jury to find Defendant guilty of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt; and

(2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request to ascertain the identities of the confidential informant and CrimeStopper's tipster involved in this case.

II.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 11, 2009, Thomas Shirley, a patrol officer with the DeQuincy Police Department, was responding to a domestic disturbance when he found Defendant fighting with his sister. Officer Shirley arrested Defendant and transported him to DeQuincy Police Department headquarters. During booking, several credit cards belonging to Darrell Schaub and Deanna Brissey were found in Defendant's possession.

A detective with the DeQuincy Police Department was assigned to investigate the credit cards found in Defendant's possession. He learned that Mr. Schaub was staying at the Parkway Motel. On March 16, 2009, he went to the motel where he found Mr. Schaub's room in disarray. Behind the motel, Mr. Schaub's decomposing body was found tucked between a discarded mattress and box spring. The victim's truck was located on March 20, 2009, hidden in a wooded area close to an empty house owned by Defendant's parents.

Doctor Terry Welke, a forensic pathologist with the Calcasieu Parish Coroner's Office, performed the autopsy on the victim's body. He established that Mr. Schaub died as a result of his throat being cut. He estimated death occurred in the early morning of March 10, 2009.

Several days after hearing about the murder, Dawn Vercher, whose husband was a friend of Defendant's, informed police about a recent encounter with Defendant on the morning of March 10, 2009. She testified that while she was preparing her children for school, Defendant showed up covered with blood. He told her that he had been in Houston buying drugs when someone shot his friend, and he had to stab the shooter. She said he left the house, then within a short time, came back and wanted to take a shower, but she made him use the sink. She said he started to leave the discarded, bloody clothes there, but she made him take the clothes with him. She then threw away the sponge he used to clean himself. She identified the victim's truck as the one Defendant was driving.

Defendant's clothes were confiscated after he was booked for the domestic disturbance complaint. Several scrapings and buccal swabs were taken from both the victim and Defendant. The victim's DNA, via a blood stain, was located on Defendant's pants. Blood stains on Defendant's shoes also proved to be the victim's. While there was evidence of blood on the knife found in close proximity to the victim's body, DNA analysis proved inconclusive.

Brent Young, a detective with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office, testified that on or about April 14, 2009, he received a tip through CrimeStoppers regarding Devin “Bookie” Patrick. According to the tipster, Mr. Patrick had a bite mark on his hand and should be investigated in the matter of Mr. Schaub's murder. Detective Young further testified that he received the same information from a confidential informant on March 30, 2011. Based on these two tips, Detective Young made contact with Mr. Patrick. Mr. Patrick had an injury on one of his hands. He told the detective that it was a grease burn from frying chicken. Detective Young stated the injury did not appear to be a bite wound. He further testified he had no other information to connect Mr. Patrick to the motel murder.

Detective Young also testified that on April 14, 2009, he received a CrimeStopper's tip, which stated that Deanna Brissey's vehicle was involved in a double murder in DeQuincy and the bodies were buried by an old crash site where someone had died in the crash. Ms. Brissey, whose credit cards were found in Defendant's possession, stated she knew Defendant. Detective Young examined the vehicle and found no evidence to “indicate blood or otherwise any crime scene.”

Defendant testified that he had initially lied to the police regarding his involvement with the killing of Mr. Schaub. He stated he was afraid to tell the police the truth because he was scared of Mr. Patrick. He explained that on March 9, 2009, he had permission to use Mr. Schaub's truck to run errands around town, including purchasingcocaine for Mr. Schaub. While he admitted he initially told the police that he found Mr. Schaub's credit cards in a black bag under a railroad trestle, he testified that Mr. Schaub actually allowed him to use the cards, which were kept in the ashtray of the truck, to purchase gas for the truck, alcohol, cigarettes, and any other little item he may have needed. Defendant testified that he returned to the motel early in the morning on March 10, 2009. He found the victim's door open and the victim missing. He then encountered Mr. Patrick, bare-chested and breathing hard, coming through a breezeway which led to the back side of the motel. Mr. Patrick told him that he had gotten into a fight with the victim. Mr. Patrick asked Defendant to drive Mr. Schaub's truck around to the back of the motel. After driving behind the motel, Defendant testified that Mr. Patrick told him to grab the victim's hands while Mr. Patrick grabbed the victim's legs. Defendant said he did not know what condition the victim was in at this time, as it was dark and there were no lights behind the motel. As they were walking backwards with the victim, Defendant tripped and got blood on him. He said he freaked out and told Mr. Patrick he could not help and left in the truck. Defendant testified that he drove to an old house that his parents owned, where he parked the truck and stayed for the night. He burned the old clothes in the backyard burn pile.

Defendant further testified that Ms. Vercher lied. He said that she did not like him because he did drugs with her husband, Roy, and because Roy had an affair with Defendant's sister. He also explained he would not have killed Mr. Schaub because Mr. Schaub owed him money for drugs that were fronted to him.

On September 10, 2009, the grand jury indicted Defendant for the second degree murder of Darrell Schaub, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Identification of Confidential Informant, or Alternatively, to Quash the Bill of Indictment with Incorporated Memorandum.” A hearing on the motion was held, and the motion was denied. After filing for a writ review with this honorable court, the trial court's ruling was affirmed. State v. Dickerson, 12–181 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/23/12) (unpublished opinion).

On June 5, 2013, Defendant filed a “Motion for In Camera Inspections of CrimeStoppers Documents and Confidential Informant Information with Incorporated Memorandum La. R.S. 15:477.1 & C.E. 514.” Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion.

A jury trial commenced, and on June 24, 2013, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced on June 27, 2013, to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in denying his request to discover the identity of the confidential informant and CrimeStopper's tipster.

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

In State v. Bryant, 12–233 (La.10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429, the Louisiana supreme court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence claims, reiterating that the appellate review of such claims is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984). In applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the appellate court must determine that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence is “sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Frinks
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 12 Junio 2019
    ... ... Dickerson , 14-170, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/14), 140 So.3d 904, 909, writ denied , 14-1466 (La. 3/13/15), 161 So.3d 638. Finally, "[w]hen a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant's own testimony, that hypothesis ... ...
  • State v. Ware
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 4 Octubre 2017
    ... ... 14:10(1). Specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm may be inferred from "the extent and severity of the victim's injuries." State v ... Dickerson , 14-170, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/14), 140 So.3d 904, 909, writ denied, 14-1466 (La. 3/13/15), 161 So.3d 638, citing State v ... Patterson , 10-415 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/11/11), 63 So.3d 140, writ denied , 11-338 (La. 6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1037. As noted above, there was testimony that the victim's ... ...
  • Dickerson v. Vannoy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • 6 Agosto 2019
    ... ... I. BACKGROUND A ... Conviction Following a jury trial in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, Dickerson was convicted on June 24, 2013, of one count of second degree murder. State v ... Dickerson , 140 So.3d 904, 907 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014). On June 27, 2013, he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Id ... The charge related to the murder of Darrell Schaub, a friend of the petitioner. Page 2 B ... ...
  • State v. Tucker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 31 Mayo 2023
    ... ... this court's prior ruling finding police had reasonable ... suspicion to stop him and probable cause to arrest him was ... clear error ...          As this ... court explained in State v. Dickerson , 14-170, p. 9 ... (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/14), 140 So.3d 904, 909, writ ... denied , 14-1466 (La. 3/13/15), 161 So.3d 638: ... Under the "law of the case" doctrine, prior ... decisions of the appellate court are considered binding and ... may not be reconsidered on ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT