State v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 10 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | 50,838–KA,50,839–KA. |
| Citation | 200 So.3d 895 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Randall Glenn MATTHEWS, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Manasseh, Gill, Knipe & Belanger, P.L.C., by John E. Di Giulio, Caitlin M.A. Chugg, for Appellant.
J. Schuyler Marvin, District Attorney, John M. Lawrence, R. Lane Pittard, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOORE and PITMAN, JJ.
The defendant, Randall Glenn Matthews, was charged by bill of information with aggravated battery following an altercation in the parking lot of his pawn shop. Subsequently, he was billed with an additional charge of obstruction of justice for withholding video evidence of the incident. The cases were consolidated for trial, and the court denied Matthews' motion to sever. The six-person jury found Matthews guilty of simple battery and obstruction of justice. Matthews was subsequently sentenced to six months in jail for the simple battery conviction and 18 months at hard labor for the obstruction of justice conviction. The trial court ordered the obstruction of justice sentence to run consecutively to the simple battery sentence. Matthews now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
Bossier City Police were called to the Cash In a Flash pawn shop on November 7, 2014, in response to a physical altercation between the defendant, Matthews, who owned the pawn shop, and the victim, Emmett Stroud. Stroud was attempting to collect money that Matthews allegedly owed him pursuant to a Crime Stoppers award involving theft of a firearm from the pawn shop.
The argument occurred in the parking lot of the pawn shop. The defendant struck Stroud, and a fight ensued. Seeking an advantage, the defendant then ran into the store and returned with a shovel. Stroud sought safety in his van while waiting for police to arrive. The defendant struck the van with the shovel. Stroud jumped out of the van, and the defendant struck him with the shovel.1
When the Bossier City police arrived, Stroud was in the parking lot, and the building was locked. After the defendant made a brief statement to police, he complained of illness and was transported to Willis–Knighton Pierremont Health Center in Shreveport.
Detective Jeffrey Humphrey observed video surveillance cameras outside the pawn shop. He attempted to enter the pawn shop to inquire about the cameras, but the doors were locked. He then instructed Bossier City Police Detective Karen McDonald to prepare a search warrant to obtain any video recording of the incident; a search warrant was issued the same day.
Detective Humphrey also spoke with the defendant in the hospital regarding the video surveillance system. The defendant said that the video system was not working and that nothing had been recorded. He also told Det. Humphrey that he had instructed his employees not to let anyone enter the pawn shop.
Police searched the pawn shop premises, including an office in the back of the building. Inside, police found disconnected wires to which previously attached electronic equipment had been removed. They could not locate any video surveillance equipment in the pawn shop. One officer testified that looking for the video equipment in the pawn shop “was like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
On January 15, 2015, the defendant was charged with the aggravated battery of Stroud. He retained attorney John Bokenfohr as counsel and entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment.
Both parties propounded discovery requests. The state complied and provided the defendant with the requested information along with “open discovery” of its file. However, the defense failed to comply with the state's discovery requests, which prompted the state to file a motion to vacate the defendant's request for a preliminary hearing.
On March 9, 2015, the defense responded to the state's discovery requests, stating that it would provide a disc of the surveillance video of the incident in question. The disc included video of the altercation, as well as enhancements by the defense expert.
On March 10, 2015, the state and defendant filed the original (not enhanced) surveillance video into the record as a joint exhibit. The state noted that, per the defense's instructions, it would retrieve the surveillance equipment at the office of Marion Marks, the defense's expert, later that day. The preliminary examination was then conducted, and based on the testimony of Det. Humphrey and the surveillance video, the trial court determined that probable cause existed for the defendant's aggravated battery charge. Trial was set for May 18, 2015.
On April 14, 2015, the state charged the defendant with obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence, in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1. During a hearing regarding discovery on April 14, 2015, the state noted its intention to try the defendant's aggravated battery charge at the same time as the obstruction charge.
On April 21, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to continue trial and to sever the obstruction of justice charge from the aggravated battery charge. In his motion, the defendant asserted that his current attorney, John Bokenfohr, had an unwaivable conflict of interest in the obstruction of justice matter because it was likely that he would be called as a witness. He requested that the matters be severed and that the trial for his obstruction case be continued to allow him time to retain new counsel.
The following week, at the arraignment for obstruction of justice, Mr. Bokenfohr noted that he had filed a motion to sever because he had an unwaivable conflict in the obstruction matter. He declined to enroll in the defendant's obstruction case and the defendant entered a pro se plea of not guilty. Bokenfohr then argued that the obstruction matter should be severed from the aggravated battery case and should also be continued. The state countered that the defendant had caused the delays in the aggravated battery case by failing to turn over the surveillance video or the computer containing the video until March 10, 2015.
The trial court denied the motion to sever, noting that the aggravated battery charge and obstruction of justice charge arose out of the same incident. It ruled that the defendant could retain additional counsel, if he chose, to represent him on the obstruction charge. Matthews requested a continuance to allow him time to find a second attorney. The trial court granted the motion and set both cases for trial on July 27, 2015.
The defendant sought supervisory review of the trial court's ruling denying his motion to sever with this court; the writ was denied on the showing made. Trial commenced on July 28, 2015, with attorney Bokenfohr representing the defendant in both matters.
At trial, Det. Humphrey testified that he investigated the incident. He interviewed Stroud and then interviewed the defendant at Willis–Knighton Pierremont Medical Center. The defendant told Det. Humphrey that the surveillance system at the pawn shop was not working, that nothing had been recorded, and that he told his employees not to let anyone in the pawn shop. Det. Humphrey told the defendant that he was in the process of securing a search warrant, and the defendant said that he wanted to cooperate with police. Det. Humphrey said that the defendant was not cooperative, however.
Det. Humphrey identified the video recording of the incident, which was played in open court. The defendant was working on a vehicle in the parking lot when Stroud's van pulled up. After speaking to one another, both men walked toward Stroud's van when the defendant pushed Stroud. Stroud pushed him back and punched him in the face. The two men then began fighting. The defendant ran to the side door of the pawn shop and returned with a shovel. Stroud got in his van and the defendant hit the window of Stroud's van with the shovel. Stroud then jumped out of his van, and the defendant hit Stroud in the head with the shovel. The defendant quickly ran back into the pawn shop and closed the door. Stroud got back into his van.
Det. Humphrey acknowledged that the video showed that some of Stroud's statements regarding the fight were inaccurate. Specifically, Stroud initially said that the defendant struck his van twice, and that he never hit the defendant.
Det. Humphrey testified that although the incident took place on November 7, 2014, the defendant did not turn over the video surveillance until March, 2015. He said that his investigation would have been much easier if he had obtained the video earlier.
Bossier City Police Officer Darrin Roberts interviewed both the defendant and Stroud at the scene. Ofc. Roberts stated that the defendant's statement was somewhat inconsistent with the crime scene and corroborated Det. Humphrey's testimony that the defendant said that the video surveillance system at the pawn shop was not functioning at the time of the incident.
Sergeant William Fuller testified that he had worked on investigations at the defendant's pawn shop before, and he knew that the defendant had a camera above the door on the side of the pawn shop, which would presumably have captured the altercation with Stroud. However, the defendant told Sgt. Fuller that the camera had been broken for some time.
Sgt. Fuller executed the search warrant on November 7, 2014. He testified that one of the pawn shop employees showed police where the surveillance system was supposed to be located, but they found only disconnected wires. Police were unable to locate the surveillance system that day.
Bossier City Police Sergeant Darren Barclay assisted in executing the search and noted that the search warrant specifically listed the surveillance system as an item to be recovered. Sgt. Barclay testified that the pawn shop employees refused to let police in to conduct the search, and one of the employees, a woman named Nancy, told Sgt. Barclay that the defendant had advised her not to let police inside...
To continue reading
Request your trial