State v. Laviolette

Decision Date26 September 2006
Docket NumberNo. 06-KA-92.,06-KA-92.
Citation943 So.2d 527
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Richard J. LAVIOLETTE.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Defendant appeals from his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence to life imprisonment, at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. We affirm.

On December 5, 2002, the Jefferson Parish Grand Jury issued an indictment charging Defendant with first degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30. Christopher Arceneaux (Arceneaux) was charged as a co-defendant in the same indictment.1 Defendant was arraigned on December 9, 2002, and pled not guilty.

On January 27, 2003, defense counsel filed a motion to appoint a sanity commission, alleging Defendant was not competent to stand trial. The trial court granted the motion on January 29, 2003, and appointed a sanity commission. The court held a competency hearing on May 7, 2003. After hearing the testimony of Drs. Richard Richoux and Rafael Salcedo, the court found Defendant was competent to stand trial.

On February 27, 2003, Defendant filed a Motion to Sever Parties on the Basis of Antagonistic Defenses. The trial court granted the motion on June 5, 2003. Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Statements on January 17, 2003. He filed an Amended Motion to Suppress Statements on January 27, 2003. On September 3, 2003, those motions were heard and denied on September 9, 2003. Defendant applied to this Court for supervisory writs, challenging the trial court's ruling. This Court denied writs. State v. Laviolette, 03-1172, (La.App. 5th Cir.10/30/03).

On April 1, 2004, the State amended the indictment as to Defendant only. The State reduced the charged offense to second degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1), and alleged that the murder was committed while Defendant was engaged in the attempted perpetration of an armed robbery. Defendant was arraigned as to the amended indictment on April 6, 2004, and he pled not guilty.

Defendant was tried by a twelve-member jury on April 19, 20, and 21, 2004. The following facts were offered at trial.

Zaina Mansour (Zaina) testified at trial that she is fourteen years old, and she has a brother and a sister who are eight-year-old twins. On the night of October 27, 2002, Zaina and her mother, Deana Mansour (Mrs. Mansour), returned to their home at 804 Huckleberry in Terrytown after a visit with Zaina's grandmother. Mrs. Mansour parked the family's van in the driveway in front of the house, and she and Zaina began cleaning the inside of the vehicle.

Zaina testified that she was standing on the outside of the vehicle on the passenger side, cleaning the back seat. Her mother was standing outside on the vehicle's driver's side. Two young men—one black and one white—approached Zaina from behind. She testified that the two men were together. The black man grabbed her shoulder and turned her around to face him. He pointed a gun at her face and said, "[G]ive me everything you got." The white man did not say anything, but began rubbing Zaina's thigh with his hand. Zaina testified she believed she was being sexually assaulted, and she was afraid. She called out to her mother.

Mrs. Mansour crawled across the back seat of the van and put her arm around Zaina, shielding the girl with her body. Mrs. Mansour told the men to take everything she had. Zaina testified that her mother tried to move her purse toward the men, offering it to them. But the men did not take anything. Mrs. Mansour said, "Zaina, call the police." The black assailant shot Mrs. Mansour, and both men fled on foot.

Zaina testified that she closed and locked the van doors and began performing CPR on her mother. She tried to call police on a cellular telephone, but the phone was inoperable. Zaina ran to the front door of the house and called to her father for help. Aref Mansour (Mr. Mansour), Zaina's father (and the victim's husband), testified that he was napping inside the house when his daughter knocked on the door. He said Zaina called police, and officers responded quickly. But by the time emergency medical technicians arrived, Mrs. Mansour was dead.

Mr. Mansour testified that police found $1,600 in cash in the van after the murder. He said that Mrs. Mansour worked in her family's business, and she often handled large sums of money.

Dr. Karen Ross, an expert in forensic pathology, testified that she performed an autopsy on the victim's body. She determined the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest. The doctor testified that the wound was consistent with the victim turning and shielding someone else.

Deputy Stephanie Bartolo (Deputy Bartolo), a patrol officer with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, testified the shooting call originated at 8:45 p.m., and it took her about three minutes to arrive at the scene. Another deputy was already there. Deputy Bartolo testified that the victim was in the vehicle, slumped over the seat and bleeding profusely. Zaina, who was standing next to the vehicle, said "Help my mom. Please don't let my mom die." Deputy Bartolo testified that she attempted to administer first aid to the victim. She briefly interviewed Zaina, who described the perpetrators as a white man and a black man.

Lieutenant Grey Thurman (Lieutenant Thurman), a platoon commander with the Homicide Section, testified that his squad was assigned to the investigation. He and Detective Donald Meunier (Detective Meunier) processed the scene at 804 Huckleberry. Lieutenant Thurman testified that he grew up near the scene, and he knew there was little foot traffic from outside the neighborhood. He therefore believed that the perpetrators lived in the neighborhood.

Lieutenant Thurman testified that among the items of evidence recovered at the scene were a spent cartridge casing and a projectile from a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun. The murder weapon was never recovered. The Mansours' vehicle was impounded, and was processed for evidence at the Detective Bureau. Detective Meunier testified that a palm print found on the rear passenger side of the victim's vehicle was determined to be that of Arceneaux. No fingerprints were found that matched Defendant's.

Detective Meunier testified that the sheriff's department received a number of anonymous telephone calls from people who suggested Defendant was involved in the murder. Using computer databases, Detective Meunier found a photograph of Defendant. Defendant fit Zaina's general description of the second perpetrator as a white or Hispanic man. Detective Meunier testified that, on October 29, 2002, he showed Zaina a photographic lineup containing a picture of Defendant, but Zaina was unable to make identification.

Detective Meunier testified that his suspicions were further piqued by the fact that Defendant lived only three or four houses away from the Mansours. Moreover, the detective learned that Dennis Cloud (Mr. Cloud), an associate of Defendant's had reported a nine millimeter handgun stolen from his car on October 24, 2002, while the vehicle was parked in front of Defendant's house. Based on the evidence found at the scene, the investigators believed the murder weapon was a nine millimeter handgun.

Deputy Kirk Zeagler (Deputy Zeagler) testified that he and other officers canvassed the Mansours' neighborhood on October 30, 2002, with the hope of uncovering additional information about the perpetrators. Officers went to Defendant's house and spoke with Defendant and his mother. Deputy Zeagler said Defendant's mother denied any knowledge of the murder. Defendant did not say that he had seen either the shooting itself or the perpetrators. The deputy said that Defendant's demeanor suggested he was afraid and he found Defendant's behavior to be inappropriate.

Mr. Cloud testified, as a defense witness, that he has known Defendant for ten years, and that he was a friend of Defendant's older brother, Michael. Prior to the murder, he visited the Laviolette house nearly every day. Mr. Cloud testified that on October 24, 2002, he parked his car in front of Defendant's house during a brief visit. He later noticed the handgun he kept in the car was missing. Mr. Cloud testified that there was not a time during the visit when Defendant could have gotten into his car without being seen. Defendant was in his presence during his entire visit, except when he went to use the bathroom.

Mr. Cloud testified that following the murder, he met with Detective Meunier to inform him about the theft of his gun. Detective Meunier asked Mr. Cloud to help him initiate contact with Defendant. The detective testified that he asked Mr. Cloud to invite Defendant on a social outing. Officers would be stationed at a prearranged location, and they would stop Defendant and Mr. Cloud. In that way, Detective Meunier planned to make contact with Defendant, while ensuring that he would not have an opportunity to "tip off" his co-perpetrator.

The detective testified that he and several other plainclothes detectives waited on Terry Parkway in Terrytown until Mr. Cloud and Defendant approached riding Mr. Cloud's motorcycle. The officers stopped the two men, informed Defendant about the homicide investigation, and asked him to accompany them to the Detective Bureau. When they arrived there, the officers placed Defendant in an interview room. Detective Meunier testified that he advised Defendant of his Miranda2 rights, and Defendant agreed to waive his rights and submit to a tape recorded interview. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 23, 2015
    ...Because defendant was sentenced pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1, his sentence is necessarily at hard labor. See State v. Laviolette,06–92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/26/06), 943 So.2d 527, 537, writ denied,06–2585 (La.5/18/07), 957 So.2d 149.3 Although defendant asserts that he received the maximum sent......
  • State v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • April 26, 2023
    ... ... knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the ... purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of ... the privilege." Defendant also directs this court's ... attention to State v. Laviolette , 06-92, p. 14 ... (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/26/06), 943 So.2d 527, 535, writ ... denied , 06-2585 (La. 5/18/07), 957 So.2d 149, in which ... the fifth circuit noted that it is reversible error when the ... "'the Government makes a conscious and flagrant ... attempt to build ... ...
  • State v. Chairs
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 27, 2012
    ...15]of privilege outside the jury's presence, considering the undue weight a jury might give to such a claim. State v. Laviolette, 06–92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/26/06), 943 So.2d 527, 535,writ denied,06–2585 (La.5/18/07), 957 So.2d 149. In addressing the issue of whether it is permissible to allow......
  • State v. Edward Williams Jr.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • November 9, 2010
    ...the commitment accurately reflected the sentence to be served, is not an error requiring corrective action. See State v. Laviolette, 06–92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/26/06), 943 So.2d 527, writ denied, 06–2585 (La.5/18/07), 957 So.2d 149. The transcript reflects that the trial judge failed to state ......
  • 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