State v. King
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | COOKS |
| Citation | State v. King, 124 So.3d 623 (La. App. 2013) |
| Decision Date | 06 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–469.,13–469. |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. William KING, III. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Earl B. Taylor, District Attorney, St. Landry Parish, Jennifer M. Ardoin, Asst. District Attorney, Opelousas, LA, for Appellee, State of Louisiana.
Daniel Sanford, Lafayette, LA, for Appellant, William King, III.
Court composed of Judges SYLVIA R. COOKS, MARK T. AMY and BILLY H. EZELL.
[3 Cir. 1]Defendant, William King, III, (Defendant) was indicted on January 26, 2010, for the brutal second degree murder of Brian Armstrong (Armstrong), in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. The murder took place in the St. Landry Parish jail in cell number eight known as “the drunk tank.” Defendant's cousin, and co-perpetrator, Chadwick O. King (Chadwick) was also indicted for the murder.1
The jury found Defendant guilty as charged on March 15, 2012. Chadwick's jury rendered a responsive verdict of guilty of negligent homicide in a separate trial in late March of 2012, after Defendant's trial.2 Defendant filed a motion for new trial arguing the evidence did not support the essential elements of his conviction and further asserted that newly discovered evidence would have changed the verdict. The trial court denied Defendant's motion on January 23, 2013.
Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient to convict him or to show his specific intent to cause death or great bodily harm to Armstrong. He also asserts the testimony of a key witness, Reginald Cretain (Cretain), was unreliable because of mental impairment.
Included as an attachment to Defendant's brief is a transcript of Cretain's testimony from Chadwick's trial, given on March 30, 2012, after Defendant's trial. It is not a part of the record of Defendant's appeal. Nothing indicates it was ever shown to or discussed with the trial court as part of this matter. Defendant's motion for new trial alleges he tried to obtain a transcript of the testimony, but the [3 Cir. 2]cost was prohibitive. Nevertheless, Defendant obtained this testimony and now seeks to offer it as part of this appeal. This court may not consider this transcript which has not been first presented to the trial court. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–1.7. For the reasons as stated herein we affirm Defendant's conviction.
Brian Armstrong was kicked and stomped to death in the Opelousas City Jail on September 28, 2009 by Defendant and Chadwick. He was booked into the jail around 8:39 p.m. on September 27, 2009, for disturbing the peace due to intoxication, resisting an officer, and entering/remaining on premises after being forbidden. He was attempting to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Opelousas, Louisiana. The toxicology report and expert medical testimony demonstrate Armstrong was severely intoxicated and had also consumed a large quantity of the drug Prozac. The booking sheet indicates Armstrong “was very combative and was not dressed out.” According to trial testimony, Armstrong was “combative” in that he would not comply with the arresting officers' requests and became limp when the officers at the jail attempted to put him in the “drunk tank.”
The video recording system at the jail included a camera at the end of a hallway that showed the exterior of cell eight. The camera was motion-activated. Without movement the camera is operational but does not record. According to the State's witness, “the cameras were not working ... [n]ot showing on the monitor” at the patrol supervisor's desk on September 27, 2009. Thus, the patrol supervisor, Lieutenant Mark Semien (Lieutenant Semien) of the Opelousas Police Department, could not observe anything that took place in the hallway outside cell eight.
[3 Cir. 3]The recorded video shows Armstrong was unable to stand when he was carried out of the booking area at 8:18 p.m. on September 27. Lieutenant Semien testified Armstrong “just went limp and he refused to get up” when “he learned that he was going to the jail cell.” Law enforcement officers carried Armstrong into the “drunk tank,” an eight-foot by eight-foot cinderblock room. The light in the cell did not work; a light was in the hallway, but “you can only see, you know, very—very little in the—in the drunk tank.” Nevertheless, Lieutenant Semien testified he could clearly see Armstrong inside the cell because he “was lying right there at the doorway when you open the doorway.” The cell's solid metal door had a small rectangular window around eye level and a pan-slot lower on the door. It was through this pan-slot that a jail trustee saw Armstrong lying dead on the bloodied floor of the cell the next morning. Apparently no officer checked on the cell for at least six hours.
At 10:40 p.m., the video shows police escorting Cretain through the hallway into the cell.3 A man wearing an orange jumpsuit is locked in the cell at 11:24 p.m. Another man wearing orange is locked in the cell at 11:32 p.m. At 11:36, the video shows clothing being thrown through the rectangular opening of the cell door into the hallway. Police are in the hallway at 11:55 p.m. on September 27 and again at 12:01 a.m. on September 28, but they do not approach the “drunk tank.” An orange jumpsuit is thrown through the opening at 12:31 a.m. Nothing else occurs on the video until 6:00 a.m., when an officer appears in the hallway. He does not check the cell. At 6:05 a.m., a jail trustee, picking up trash in the hallway, puts something into the pan-slot of the door, and at 6:07 a.m., he puts the orange [3 Cir. 4]jumpsuit through the opening. At 6:08 a.m., he looks through the opening in the doorway and summons help. Medical personnel arrive at 6:23 a.m.
Lieutenant Semien identified Cretain and Chadwick at trial. He testified no one was in the “drunk tank” cell when Armstrong was placed inside. Armstrong was conscious when he was brought to the police station and when they placed Cretain into the cell with him. When Defendant was placed in the cell, he was alive, fully clothed, and had no signs of any of the injuries he later suffered and died from. He was left lying on the floor on his stomach. Every time Lieutenant Semien opened the cell door, Armstrong looked up and moved, indicating to the Lieutenant he was conscious and alive. Lieutenant Semien did not consider Armstrong “that much impaired that he needed medical attention” upon arrival at the station “because he was being combative with the officers.”
Armstrong made no sound at any time Lieutenant Semien went to the cell. He discovered Armstrong was dead when other officers reported to him. Lieutenant Semien could not say what time Armstrong died or how long he had been dead when the body was discovered. He believed he would have heard any “excessively loud” noises coming from the drunk tank “if they were banging on the door, stuff like that,” while he was at his desk. A solid steel door separated the desk from the hall that led to the “drunk tank.” Cretain testified he screamed for help and banged on the cell door repeatedly while Armstrong was being brutally stomped to death by Defendant and Chadwick but no one came to help.
Jeffery Fuselier, the trustee at the jail, testified one of the men inside the cell asked Fuselier to hand him a shirt. Fuselier handed him the orange shirt thrown from the cell earlier. Another man in the cell asked Fuselier to hand him the orange jumpsuit thrown from the cell onto the floor in the hallway. Fuselier gave them the clothing through the pan-slot in the door. He counted three people in the [3 Cir. 5]cell, then saw the body on the floor, lying on its back. A shirt found near the body was torn into two pieces.
Cretain, who was living in Tacoma, Washington at the time of trial, was an eyewitness to the murder. He thought he was placed in the Opelousas City Jail for “disturbing the peace or something—something close to that.” 4 He testified Armstrong was on the ground when he went to the holding cell. Armstrong “was sleeping, you know, drunk and stuff ... He was laying like on his stomach ... arms to his side, you know, and kind of like sleeping there [.]” Cretain testified he saw no injuries on Armstrong's body when he first observed him. Armstrong was “a little bit” conscious, and he lifted his head, looked at Cretain, and then “laid back down.”
Cretain identified Defendant as the next person brought to the cell although booking records indicate Defendant went to the cell after Chadwick. Defendant “was a little upset and stuff,” and “he was talking and ... voice was kind of ... like angry and stuff, you know, just cursing a little bit and stuff, you know.” He was wearing an orange jumpsuit. Cretain was intoxicated and “kind of like upset” himself. Cretain testified that after all four men were in the cell, Defendant kicked Armstrong twice in the head while he was lying on the floor, then Chadwick joined in the beating. Both Defendant and Chadwick “jumped on him.” Chadwick began striking Armstrong after about “the first three blows” from Defendant. Both kicked Armstrong in the face, then Chadwick kicked him in the side. Defendant removed Armstrong's clothing and then “stomped in the groin section” causing severe injury to Armstrong's genitals and inner thighs.
As Defendant stomped Armstrong in the groin, he said “ ‘[y]ou ain't gonna have no more kids,’ or something like that,” and referred to Armstrong as “You [3 Cir. 6]Cracker.” Chadwick stood on the cell's bench and jumped onto Armstrong again. The body, according to Cretain, was Forensic evidence showed that Armstrong suffered severe internal injuries, including lacerations to his liver and a torn mesentery which holds a person's intestines in place.
Cretain banged on the cell door and called to his brother, Devon...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Harmon
... ... [w]hen the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm[.]” Additionally, specific intent to kill may be inferred by the severity of a victim's injuries. State v. King", 13–469 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 623. In this matter, Ms. Wood's killer clearly evidenced the intent to kill and inflict great bodily harm: he slit her throat, shot her in the head three times, and set her on fire. He also used a ligature around her neck for obvious control purposes. \xC2" ... ...
- Tomasik v. La State Veterans Affairs Office, 13–451.
-
Death in the City: Gorman's Flawed Application of the Direct Action Statute to Insured Political Subdivisions
...the policy had expired. 11 The trial court granted Lexington’s motion for summary Copyright 2015, by GRANT TOLBIRD. 1. State v. King, 124 So. 3d 623, 625 (La. Ct. App. 3d 2013). 2. Id. at 626. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. Both defendants are referred to as “the City” throughout this Note. 7. Gor......