State v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 25 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2018 KA 1107,2018 KA 1107 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DEDRICK MATTHEWS |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Defendant, Dedrick Matthews, was charged by bill of indictment with two counts of vehicular homicide, a violation of La. R.S. 14:32.1 (), and two counts of first degree vehicular negligent injuring, a violation of La. R.S. 14:39.2 (), in an incident involving four victims. He pled not guilty. Defendant filed a myriad of counseled and pro-se motions, inter alia, a motion for speedy trial, a motion to quash, a motion to suppress, and a motion to dismiss, all of which were denied. Some of these denials were argued in this court during the pendency of the prosecution. See State v. Matthews, 2017-1106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/16/17), 2017 WL 4675786 (unpublished writ action); State v. Matthews, 2017-0432 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/28/17), 2017 WL 1535206 (unpublished writ action).
After a trial by a six-member jury, defendant was found guilty as charged on all counts. The trial court imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment at hard labor as follows: twenty-five years as to count one, twenty-five years as to count two, five years as to count three, and five years as to count four. The trial court ordered that defendant be given credit for time served and that his sentences on counts one and two be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for the first three years of the sentences. Defendant filed unsuccessful counseled and pro-se motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and reconsideration of sentence. Defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
During the early morning hours of March 30, 2014, Johnny Galmon ("Galmon"), Kandace Cox ("Cox"), Tyquinicia Barnes ("Barnes"), and Barnes' sister, Khadijah Johnson ("Johnson"), were riding in Galmon's two-door Honda Accord on I-10. The four had been at Barnes' and Johnson's mother's house and were headed to a club in Port Allen. While at the house, both Johnson and Galmon had a daiquiri. During the drive, the car had a flat tire, which Cox and Galmon fixed with a spare donut tire on the roadside at the I-10/I-110 split at the base of the bridge.
Sergeant James Pittman, a Baton Rouge Police Department ("BRPD") accident reconstruction specialist, was qualified at trial, without objection, as an expert in accident investigation and reconstruction in addition to speed calculation. Sgt. Pittman described the process used to measure and record the scene of an accident using precision instruments, in addition to looking at physical evidence to determine the chain of events that initiated and followed a collision. He also extensively discussed the use of "crush calculations" in proprietary software and the cars' event data recorders to determine the speeds of the two vehicles, a Honda Accord and a Dodge Charger, at the time of the crash.
Sgt. Pittman opined that the evidence from the scene and the vehicles' computers showed that immediately after changing the tire, the victim's Honda began driving up the bridge in the far right-hand lane. He estimated they were travelling at about 20 mph. Sgt. Pittman stated that the posted speed limit on the bridge is 60 mph and that the minimum speed on the bridge would have been 45 mph. From the photographs, Sgt. Pittman noted it was a clear, dry evening, and that the street lights appeared to be functioning properly. Based on his review of the photographs, Sgt. Pittman said he had no reason to believe that either vehicle did not have its headlights on.
Sgt. Pittman testified that as manifested by the removal of his foot from the throttle, defendant likely noticed something in the road at about 0.6 seconds before impact and was driving 99 mph, braking to 93 mph, at impact. Defendant did not begin braking until 0.4 seconds before impact. While the initial braking event was not severe, Sgt. Pittman suspected defendant was still trying to figure out what was in front of him when the collision happened. Sgt. Pittman explained that while there was some attempt to steer left immediately before the crash, he could not determine if it was intentional or in reaction to the impending collision. Moreover, Sgt. Pittman admitted to having difficulty in mathematically determining defendant's speed at point of impact due to the 892 feet defendant traveled after the crash. Instead, he considered most accurate the Charger's event recording of 93 mph at impact. None of the victims were wearingseatbelts at the time of impact. Galmon and Cox sustained fatal injuries in the collision, and Barnes and Johnson were both seriously injured.
A "crush energy report" generated by Sgt. Pittman on May 28, 2014, was introduced into evidence. That report contained a result based on formula error, which was noted on the record as improperly calculating the crash speed. That error was highlighted by Sgt. Pittman in his testimony and on the report. Sgt. Pittman only noticed the error the morning of his trial testimony, which caused him to generate an amended report that same morning. Immediately thereafter, it became apparent that defense counsel did not have a copy of the amended report, which was dated March 1, 2018.
It was defense counsel's concern that his crash expert did not have the new report with which to compare his findings. The trial court ended the trial day early in order to permit defendant's expert time to examine the new report. In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Sgt. Pittman noted that the defense expert had the same underlying data that he collected and should be aware the initial report's result was erroneous. On the next day of trial, defense counsel withdrew the objection, stating on the record the error was not detrimental to defendant's case, but, in fact, helped his case.
Sgt. Pittman narrated a presentation of photographs taken at the scene for the benefit of the jury, including photos of both vehicles and their conditions following the crash. One photograph of each deceased victim was shown as well. Sgt. Pittman noted the Honda appeared to have a "donut" tire as a result of the tire change.
Lieutenant Cory Reech was dispatched to the scene of the collision on the "superstructure" of the I-10 Horrace Wilkinson Bridge ("bridge") over the Mississippi River. Upon his arrival, he saw the Honda "almost at the top of the superstructure" with the bodies of Galmon and Cox in and next to the car, in addition to seeing defendant's car a few hundred feet beyond the Honda. Lt. Reech described that one victim had been ejected from the Honda and was in the road, and the other victim was partially ejected as the result of a serious rear collision. Barnes sustained injuries requiring plates to be installed in her face and pins in her shoulder, left arm, and pelvis. Her pancreas hadruptured in the collision. Johnson sustained broken ribs and punctured lungs, and required a chest tube to breathe while receiving emergency care.
While at the scene of the accident, Lt. Reech saw the driver of the vehicle who caused the collision and approached him to conduct an investigation. Lt. Reech later identified the driver as defendant in open court. Other officers who had responded to the scene before Lt. Reech believed defendant may have been intoxicated. Upon initial contact, Lt. Reech Mirandized1 defendant, who said he understood his rights. Lt. Reech noted the odor of alcohol on defendant's breath and stated that defendant had slurred speech and glassy red eyes. At the scene, defendant told Lt. Reech that he was driving the vehicle, that he was "momentarily distracted by his passenger," and that "the next thing he knew," his vehicle struck the Honda. Defendant also admitted he had consumed two to three drinks at a casino. Defendant further stated that he and his companion chose to drive across the river to go to another bar because the casino stopped serving alcohol at 2:00 a.m.
Lt. Reech administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus portion of the standardized field sobriety test twice. Defendant showed six out of six clues both times, indicating a substantial probability that defendant was intoxicated. At that point, Lt. Reech asked defendant to submit to a breath test at the police station. Defendant initially agreed to comply, and Lt. Reech sent defendant to the station in the care of BRPD Sergeant John Fontenot because he had an audio/video recording system in his vehicle. That video was played for the jury.
After four failed attempts at completing the chemical breath test on an Intoxilyzer 5000, Lt. Reech determined defendant was being intentionally non-compliant and took his willful failure to perform the tests as a refusal. Defendant belched during the fourth test administration, which Lt. Reech understood as a stalling tactic, knowing that no fewer than 15 minutes of no mouth contamination must occur for a proper test to be run. With those circumstances, and the fact there were fatalities in the collision, Lt. Reechdetermined a chemical blood test was necessary. At no point did defendant refuse to submit to a blood draw, and in fact went to sleep in the blood draw room while waiting for a phlebotomist.
A short time later, Lt. Reech met with defendant in parish jail to continue his investigation. While defendant refused to give a statement, he made some "unsolicited comments" that Lt. Reech recorded in his notes. In those comments, defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial