State v. Kelly
| Docket Number | 55,087-KA |
| Decision Date | 28 June 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee v. JOHNATHAN TRAYVON KELLY Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 365,695, Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge.
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Chad M. Ikerd, Counsel for Appellant.
JOHNATHAN TRAYVON KELLY Pro Se.
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. District Attorney, REBECCA A. EDWARDS NANCY BERGER-SCHNEIDER SAMUEL S. CRICHTON Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee.
Before COX, STEPHENS, and ELLENDER, JJ.
This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana, the Honorable Ramona Emanuel, Judge, presiding. On October 15, 2021 defendant, Johnathan Treyvon Kelly, was convicted by a unanimous jury of one count of manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31, and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment at hard labor with credit for time served on February 24, 2022. Kelly has appealed his conviction, urging insufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Kelly's conviction and sentence.
The victim in this case, Marcus London, was killed because of a Facebook meme about the impact of makeup on the look of some women he posted to his page. His girlfriend, Symphanie Douglas, made a comment below London's post, writing, "some bitches need it." Apparently Elizabeth Wynn, a co-worker of London's, took offense to both his post and Ms. Douglas's comment, and the matter quickly escalated into a fight between Ms. Wynn and Ms. Douglas in the comment section of London's post. London attempted to defuse the situation by removing his original post before he left work. However, verbal threats later escalated into a physical confrontation between the women outside of London and Ms. Douglas's apartment.
After tagging Ms. Douglas in a Facebook live video of her and her sisters at knocking at Ms. Douglas's apartment door, Ms. Wynn, who lived in the same apartment complex, showed back up with her two sisters at the apartment Ms. Douglas and London shared. Ms. Douglas, rather than call the police, agreed to fight Ms. Wynn outside, even though she knew that the Wynn girls often fought "as a group." A fight between the women ensued. London stepped in a few times to separate them. At one point, Ms. Douglas sprayed Mace in Ms. Wynn's face. London stepped in again to break up the fight and began dragging Ms. Douglas back upstairs toward their apartment in an attempt to end the fight for good.
As Ms. Douglas and London reached the top of the stairs on the balcony, she saw a vehicle pull up in front of their apartment. The passenger, who was wearing a dark hoodie and had dreadlocks, jumped out, armed with a gun. Ms. Douglas identified him as the defendant, Johnathan Kelly, whom she knew from elementary, middle, and high school. Ms. Douglas testified at trial that she was certain of Kelly's identity, even though she did not have her glasses on and the lighting conditions were poor. Ms. Douglas testified that after getting out of the car, Kelly then pointed his gun up towards London, who was standing on the balcony facing towards the gunman. Ms. Douglas dove for cover, but London was shot twice, once in the head and once in his lower back.
Ms. Douglas went inside to get London's phone to call 9-1-1, but police were already en route to the scene, having been called for a noise complaint. When officers arrived, Ms. Douglas identified Kelly as the shooter. Officers secured the scene and began their investigation. Ballistics evidence showed that the entry wound of the fatal shot to London's head came from the right side, consistent with it having been shot from a person who had just exited a car in front of the building. No bullets were ever recovered from the victim's body or the building; three spent .40 caliber rounds were located nearby. Furthermore, no gun was found.
On June 27, 2019, a Caddo Parish grand jury issued a bill of indictment charging defendant, Johnathan Treyvon Kelly, with the second degree murder of Marcus London, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Although London had been killed on November 20, 2017, and an arrest warrant had been issued for Kelly's arrest on that evening, Kelly was not arrested until he was located in Georgia in March of 2019.
Kelly's jury trial began on October 11, 2021. A unanimous jury found him guilty of the responsive verdict of manslaughter on October 15, 2021. Motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal were filed on February 2, 2022, and denied after argument on February 23, 2022. On February 24, 2022, the trial court sentenced Kelly to 30 years at hard labor with credit for time served. A motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied on March 11, 2022. This appeal ensued.
Both appellate counsel and defendant pro se have argued that the evidence put on by the State at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
According to defense counsel, the jury was only instructed on "specific intent" manslaughter as described in La R.S. 14:31(A)(1) instead of both (A)(1) and the "felony/misdemeanor" manslaughter theory set forth in La. R.S. 14:31(A)(2). As such, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kelly was the actual shooter, because to secure a conviction for "specific intent" manslaughter under La. R.S. 14:31(A)(1), the State had to prove both specific intent to kill and causation-the crime would be murder but a lesser conviction is allowed if reasonable mitigation exists to show that the person acted in sudden passion or heat of blood.
Because the facts presented at trial were not sufficient to prove the identification of the shooter as Kelly, his conviction for manslaughter must be reversed. Alternatively, if the facts were sufficient to prove Kelly's identity as a shooter, they were not sufficient to show that he inflicted the fatal shot and "caused" London's death. Either way, Kelly is not guilty, urges counsel.
Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt because the only evidence linking him to the crime was the eyewitness testimony of Symphanie Douglas. Kelly also points out the lack of evidence tying him to the apartment complex or a .40 caliber handgun, alleged to be the murder weapon.
The State contends that Kelly, indicted for second degree murder, was found guilty by a unanimous jury of the responsive verdict of manslaughter. However, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder. According to the State, Ms. Douglas's eyewitness identification taken alone is sufficient to support Kelly's conviction. Furthermore, the record proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Kelly was the shooter and negates any reasonable probability of misidentification. Because the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder, it is sufficient to support the responsive verdict of manslaughter. Alternatively, notes the State, the jury could have found that Kelly was provoked by London's intervention in the fight between the Wynn sisters and Ms. Douglas, and that Kelly's actions were mitigated such that the second degree murder was manslaughter.
In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Leger, 17-2084 (La. 6/26/19), 284 So.3d 609; State v. Frost, 53,312 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20), 293 So.3d 708, writ denied, 20-00628 (La. 11/18/20), 304 So.3d 416. The Jackson standard does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517.
The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and accords great deference to the trier of fact's decision to accept or reject witness testimony in whole or in part. State v. Frost, supra. Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon the credibility of the witnesses, the issue is the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Robinson, 02-1869 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 66, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1023, 125 S.Ct. 658, 160 L.Ed.2d 499 (2004); State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/13/08), 975 So.2d 753.
When the defendant claims he was not the person who committed the offense, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. State v. Dorsey, 10-0216, p. 43 (La. 9/7/11), 74 So.3d 603, 633, cert. denied, 566 U.S. 930, 132 S.Ct. 1859, 182 L.Ed.2d 658 (2012); State v. Hughes, 05-0992 (La. 11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1047; State v. Myrick, 54,606, p. 7 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/21/22), 349 So.3d 92, 97. Positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Hughes, supra. It is the fact finder who weighs the respective credibility of the witnesses, and this court will generally not second-guess those determinations. Id.
La. R.S. 14:30.1 provides in pertinent part that second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm....
To continue reading
Request your trial