State v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 20 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015–KA–0886.,2015–KA–0886. |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Dale LAMBERT. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Appellee/State of Louisiana.
Jerome W. Matthews, Jr., The Law Firm of Jerome W. Matthews, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Court composed of Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge DANIEL L. DYSART, Judge SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS.
Defendant, Dale Lambert, appeals his conviction by an Orleans Parish jury of second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On August 22, 2013, Dale Lambert was indicted for the second degree murder of Bernard Santiago, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. After entering a plea of not guilty, Mr. Lambert filed motions to suppress the evidence, statements and identification, all of which were denied on May 8, 2014. A jury trial took place from March 2, 2014 through March 4, 2014 and, by a verdict of ten to two, the jury found Mr. Lambert guilty of second degree murder. After his motion for new trial was denied on April 8, 2015, Mr. Lambert was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
This appeal followed.
On March 22, 2013, Bernard Santiago was shot and killed near the intersection of Orleans Avenue and Galvez Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. According to an eyewitness, Alana Cain, who had been walking with her two nieces along Orleans Avenue at the time, observed three males were walking quickly as though "something was going to happen." She then heard gunshots and saw one of the men run from around the corner, having been shot in the leg. She saw another man lying on the ground who appeared to be deceased. She did not see the third man at that time, although when shown a picture at trial of Mr. Lambert, she identified him as the third man. A couple of weeks after the incident, Ms. Cain met with a detective to whom she gave a recorded statement. At that meeting, the detective showed Ms. Cain a lineup of six photographs and Ms. Cain positively identified Mr. Lambert as the third man she had seen on March 22, 2013.
The man who had been with Mr. Santiago and was shot in the leg on March 22, 2013 was Kerry Jones, a cousin of Mr. Santiago.1 Mr. Jones testified at trial that, on that date, he and Mr. Santiago were "hanging out" in the area of Orleans Avenue and Galvez Street. Mr. Jones admitted that Mr. Santiago was looking to buy some heroin. The two were approached by a third person, who advised that he "had something on him" and he asked that they follow him. Mr. Santiago began talking with the other man, as Mr. Jones stayed a bit behind talking on the phone and acting as a lookout for police cars.
The three turned onto St. Ann Street and at that point, instead of producing drugs, the third man pulled a handgun from his waistband, shot Mr. Santiago three times and then turned to Mr. Jones and shot at him, striking him in the leg. Mr. Jones ran in the opposite direction of the shooter towards an area where there were a lot of people.2
The police arrived shortly after the shootings and Mr. Jones described the shooter to the officer. He again described the shooter when he was interviewed by another officer at the hospital. Later, Mr. Jones was shown a photograph lineup from which he was unable to make an identification. The following day, however, he was shown another lineup and he identified Mr. Lambert as the shooter. He explained that the photograph from the second lineup was clearer than the first.
At trial, Mr. Jones was shown the same picture of Mr. Lambert that had been shown to Ms. Cain and Mr. Jones identified him as the man who had shot him and Mr. Santiago. He likewise identified Mr. Lambert in the courtroom during trial, indicating that he was certain that Mr. Lambert was the man who shot him and Mr. Santiago.
Detective Mike McCleary, a member of the Homicide Section of the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD"), was the lead detective on the case. He was called to the scene and made contact with Ms. Cain and Mr. Jones, from whom he later obtained recorded statements, including descriptions of the shooter. A couple of days after the incident, he obtained surveillance video footage from a nearby business that captured both of the victims and a third person.3 Detective McCleary explained to the jury that the video surveillance, which was shown to the jury, depicted Mr. Jones and Mr. Santiago walking down the street, with Mr. Lambert following the two.
Detective McCleary obtained a still frame photograph from the video and placed it on the news. Thereafter, the NOPD received an anonymous call and learned the identity of the man in that still photograph—Mr. Lambert.
A photograph lineup was then shown to Mr. Jones and Detective McCleary confirmed that Mr. Jones was unable to make a positive identification in the first lineup. A second lineup was shown to him and Mr. Jones identified Mr. Lambert with 65% certainty. Ms. Cain, too, identified Mr. Lambert as the perpetrator with 90% ("nine out of ten") certainty. Detective McCleary obtained a warrant for Mr. Lambert's arrest and Mr. Lambert was ultimately arrested by the Violent Offender Squad.
According to Detective McCleary, he obtained the telephone number of Mr. Lambert's phone from Mr. Lambert and issued a subpoena for the records associated with that number.4 From those telephone records, it was determined that Mr. Lambert's telephone pinged off of a cell tower that was approximately half a mile from the scene at the time of the shooting.
The surveillance video shows that Mr. Lambert had dreadlocks on March 22, 2013. However, at the time of his arrest, Mr. Lambert had cut his hair. In a recorded interview with Officer McCleary, Mr. Lambert explained that he cut his hair because he was required to do so because of work requirements and the fact that his photograph had been publicized.5 Detective McCleary was unable to verify from Mr. Lambert's employer that its employees were required to cut their hair.
In his first assignment of errors, Mr. Lambert maintains that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of second degree murder, particularly because there was no physical evidence linking him to the shooting. He also argues that Mr. Jones was distracted at the time of the shooting and later only identified Mr. Lambert with 65% certainty. He further maintains that the State did not bear its burden of proving his identity as the perpetrator and that the State failed to negate the reasonable probability of misidentification by its witnesses.
In reviewing whether the evidence presented in a case is sufficient to support a conviction, we are governed by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and consistently followed by Louisiana courts. This Court recently reiterated the applicable standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims in State v. White, 14–0397, p. 16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/29/15), 174 So.3d 177, 188 :
In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757, 758 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). However, the reviewing court may not disregard this duty simply because the record contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime. State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1311 (La.1988). The reviewing court must consider the record as a whole since that is what a rational trier of fact would do. If rational triers of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier's view of all the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be adopted. The factfinder's discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. See Mussall, supra; Green, supra. "[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence." State v. Smith, 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La.1992).
"Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial must be sufficient under Jackson to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury." State v. Brown, 03–0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1, 18 ; State v. Armstead, 11–1344 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/25/12), 98 So.3d 891, 894, writ denied, 12–1881 (La.3/8/13), 109 So.3d 355.
We are reminded that "[i]t is not the function of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence." State v. Webb, 13–0146, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/30/14), 133 So.3d 258, 269, writ denied, 14–0436 (La.10/3/14), 149 So.3d 793. Indeed, it is well settled that credibility determinations are questions of fact "within the sound discretion of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to the evidence." Id., 13–0146, pp. 15–16, 133 So.3d at 269. Moreover, unless there is internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Marshall, 04–3139, p. 9 (La.11/29/06), 943 So.2d 362, 369 ; State v. Robinson, 10–0885, pp. 7–8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/10); 54 So.3d 1208, 1213.
"[W]hen the key issue is the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Dupart
- State v. Carter
-
State v. Jackson
...overt desire to discriminate against blacks on account of race.This court has already addressed these issues. State v. Lambert, 15–0886 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/20/16), 186 So.3d 728 ; State v. Mack, 12–0625, (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/6/15), 162 So.3d 1284. In Lambert, supra, this court held as follows:[O......
- State v. Turner