State v. Lemoine

• Decision Date: 06 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014 KA 1158.,2014 KA 1158.
• Citation: 174 So.3d 31
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Martin G. LEMOINE.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

174 So.3d 31

STATE of Louisiana

v.Martin G. LEMOINE.

No. 2014 KA 1158.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 6, 2015.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Welch, J., May 11, 2015.

Richard J. Ward, Jr., District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Engolio, Assistant District Attorney, Plaquemine, LA, for Appellant State of Louisiana.

Karl J. Koch, Mary Olive Pierson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant–Appellee Martin G. Lemoine.

Before PETTIGREW, WELCH, and CHUTZ, JJ.

Opinion

CHUTZ, J.

On January 20, 2004, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., Martin G. Lemoine, and Veronica Lemoine with conspiracy to commit money laundering (count 1), violations of La. R.S. 14:26 and 14:230 ; money laundering (count 2), a violation of La. R.S. 14:230 ; and racketeering (count 3), a violation of La. R.S. 15:1351, et seq. The defendants pled not guilty to the charges. The indictment charged that the offenses occurred between March 15, 1995 and March 6, 1998. The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the grounds that the charges were not brought within the legal delays allowed under Louisiana law. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to quash in part, based on the time limitations. The racketeering charges were dismissed because they had a five-year statute of limitations; and the portion of the money laundering (and conspiracy) charges that alleged offenses occurring more than six years prior to the indictment were also dismissed. Accordingly, the charged period against the defendants was reduced to a forty-six-day time period, from January 20, 1998 through March 6, 1998. The trial court found that the State had not alleged sufficient facts to support a violation of the money laundering statute, but gave the State an opportunity to amend the bill of particulars. The State filed an amended bill, which indicated that payments were made by checks deposited into the operating account of Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc. (Morel). The trial court denied the motion to quash the money laundering charges, finding that the State's amended bill alleged a violation of some sections of the money laundering statute.

The defendants took writs with this court, arguing that the money laundering charges should have been quashed because there was no evidence to show how much money was received by the defendants as a result of the alleged inflating of invoices during the charged time period. The defendants contended that because of the graduated nature of the penalties for money laundering, the State was required to allege a specific amount. On August 23, 2005, this court denied the writ in part and granted the writ in part; regarding the money laundering crimes, we found that the State's allegations, if proven true, constituted the crimes charged according to the language of La. R.S. 14:230 and La. R.S. 14:26. We remanded the matter with instructions that the trial court reopen the evidentiary hearing, allowing the State an opportunity to prove whether the amount of funds obtained by the defendants as a result of inflating invoices, after January 20, 1998, totaled $20,000.00 or more in order to demonstrate that the six-year time limitation of La.C.Cr.P. art. 572(A)(1) was applicable. With regard to the defendant, Veronica Lemoine, we granted the writ application, finding that the bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars did not clearly allege her activities subsequent to the initial criminal act of inflating invoices to the Union Pacific Railroad Company. The matter was remanded with instructions that the trial court allow the State an opportunity to amend the bill of particulars in order to clarify whether Veronica Lemoine engaged in any activity that would constitute money laundering. See State v. Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., 2005–0734 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/23/05) (unpublished writ). The defendants sought supervisory review with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied. See State v. Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., 2005–2457 (La.9/15/06), 936 So.2d 1254.

On January 22, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the remand from this court and ruled that the State met its burden and, as such, it was not necessary to consider evidence submitted by the defense. The defendants filed supervisory writs with this court, arguing that the trial court erred in considering only the State's evidence. On May 29, 2007, we granted the writ application and remanded with instructions for the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to quash to allow the State the opportunity to prove, pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 577, whether the amount of funds obtained by the defendants as a result of inflating invoices to the railroad company, after January 20, 1998, totaled $20,000.00 or more in order to demonstrate that the six-year time limitation of Article 572(A)(1) is applicable. See State v. Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., 2007–0768 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/29/07) (unpublished writ).

Based on the foregoing, the trial court conducted a motion to quash hearing on August 13, 2008. At this same hearing, the defendants raised a separate motion to quash based on our recent decision (at that time) in State v. Odom, 2007–0516 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/31/08), 993 So.2d 663 (per curiam). The trial court denied the motion to quash based on Odom.¹ Regarding the motion to quash claim based on time limitations, the trial court denied the motion. In its written reasons issued on November 20, 2008, the trial court stated that based upon the evidence at the motion to quash hearing, it was more probable than not that the prosecution should not be barred by prescription. The trial court found the State proved to its satisfaction that the $20,000.00 statutory threshold was met. The trial court further stated that any shortcomings in the State's case should be determined by the trier of fact at a trial on the merits. The defendants sought supervisory review with the supreme court, which was denied. See State v. Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., 2009–1979 (La.11/20/09), 25 So.3d 789.

On November 17, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to quash counts 1 and 2 (the money laundering counts) for duplicity. At a hearing on January 5, 2011, the trial court granted the motion, finding that each transaction would be considered a count of money laundering, requiring each count to be set out in the indictment. The State sought writs. Granting the writ, we found the trial court erred in ordering the State to sever each occurrence of money laundering into particular counts. We noted the indictment was not duplicitous as the occurrences were part of a common scheme or plan. See State v. Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc., 2011–0890 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/26/11) (unpublished writ). The defendants sought review with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied. See State v. Lemoine, 2011–2383 (La.2/3/12), 79 So.3d 328.

Trial began on August 26, 2013. Prior to voir dire, the trial court granted the motion to quash regarding Veronica Lemoine as a defendant, and she was dismissed. The State also dismissed the charges against Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc. Finally, the parties made clear that the only charge against the sole defendant, Martin G. Lemoine, was one count of money laundering, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:230(B)(2). Following the jury trial, the defendant was found guilty as charged. The defendant filed a motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court took the matter under advisement. Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal “for reasons stated in the Defendant's memoranda in support thereof and adopted by this Court as its own.” The State now appeals, designating one assignment of error. We affirm the trial court's ruling reversing the defendant's conviction.

FACTS

The defendant was president of Morel, a New Roads company that supplied diesel fuel to Union Pacific Railroad (U.P.) at the rail yard in Livonia, Point Coupee Parish. In the mid–1990s, from about 1995 to 1997, several drivers drove bobtail fuel trucks for Morel with carrying capacities of up to 5,000 gallons of fuel. Morel's drivers most often traveled to Valero Refining Company in Krotz Springs, and occasionally to Placid Refining Company in Port Allen, to fill their trucks up with high-sulfur diesel fuel. These refineries converted crude oil into petroleum products, including diesel, ethanol, gasoline, liquid petroleum gas, jet fuel, and fuel oils. After a driver filled his truck up, he was issued a fuel manifest from the refinery. The manifest contained pertinent information on it such as the date, the name of the refinery, the name of the driver, and how many gallons of fuel were pumped into a truck. From the refinery, Morel's drivers drove to the U.P. rail yard and transferred the fuel in the trucks directly into the locomotives, as opposed to directly to the storage fuel tanks at the yard. This refueling of the locomotives was continuous and around the clock and, as such, generated many fuel manifests. When a Morel driver finished fueling a locomotive, he handwrote the engine number and the number of gallons he transferred to the engine on the bottom of the fuel manifest he had received from the refinery. A single manifest could contain anywhere from a few engine numbers up to ten or so engine numbers and the corresponding numbers of gallons of fuel transferred to each engine. At the end of a day or shift, each driver gave his stack of manifests to Morel's lead driver, who from 1995 to 1997, was Keith Glaser. Glaser transferred the handwritten information on the fuel manifests to a field ticket. A single field ticket could contain a half-dozen or more engine numbers and the corresponding gallons of fuel pumped into each engine. Glaser handwrote the field ticket number onto its corresponding fuel manifest so that Morel could keep track of when, where, and how much it was...