State v. Odums

Citation210 So.3d 850
Decision Date30 November 2016
Docket NumberNo. 50,969–KA,50,969–KA
Parties STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Surcorey D. ODUMS, Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana (US)

CAREY J. ELLIS, III, Louisiana Appellate Project, Counsel for Appellant

JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS, LAURA OWEN WINGATE FULCO, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before WILLIAMS, CARAWAY and GARRETT, JJ.

CARAWAY, J.

Following a jury trial, Surcorey Odums was found guilty as charged of second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Odums appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Facts

On February 11, 2010, James Pouncy was found in his vehicle on a Shreveport residential street with multiple gunshot wounds

. Pouncy later died from his wounds. Upon investigation, Shreveport police officers were unable to locate any eyewitnesses to the shooting or identify the shooter from the evidence collected at the crime scene. The case remained unsolved until 2013, when police obtained the murder weapon and a video taken six days after the murder showing Surcorey Odums selling the murder weapon, a gun, to undercover law enforcement officers.

Detectives interviewed Odums, who confessed that he shot Pouncy and sold the murder weapon to the undercover agents. Odums was arrested, and on August 15, 2013, a grand jury indicted Odums for the second degree murder of James Pouncy.

After a jury trial beginning April 22, 2015, Odums was convicted as charged of second degree murder. Odums filed motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and new trial asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that a new trial was warranted because of newly-discovered evidence (a fabricated lab report) that was never disclosed to the defense. After a hearing the trial court denied both motions. On June 24, 2015, Odums was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, concurrent with any other sentence Odums was serving. Odums was ordered to serve 30 days in the parish jail in lieu of court costs, concurrent to the other sentence and with credit for time served. After the trial court denied a timely motion to reconsider sentence, this appeal followed.1

Discussion
Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his first assignment of error, Odums argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty of second degree murder. Odums asserts that the state's witnesses presented many different and conflicting stories about the events and that there was no substantial evidence linking him to Pouncy's murder. Odums also claims that his confession to the murder was uncorroborated.

The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Tate , 01–1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851So.2d 921, cert. denied , 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004) ; State v. Crossley , 48,149 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/26/13), 117 So.3d 585, writ denied, 13–1798 (La. 2/14/14), 132 So.3d 410. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05–0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517 ; Crossley , supra ; State v. Dotie , 43,819 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied , 09–0310 (La. 11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith , 94–3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied , 09–0725 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913, cert. denied , 561 U.S. 1013, 130 S.Ct. 3472, 177 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2010) ; State v. Hill , 42,025 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied , 07–1209 (La. 12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529.

Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example, a witness's testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La. 1985). Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral facts and circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Id . The trier of fact is charged with weighing the credibility of this evidence and on review, the same standard as in Jackson v. Virginia, is applied, giving great deference to the fact finder's conclusions. State v. Hill , 47,568 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/26/12), 106 So.3d 617.

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438 ; Lilly, supra ; State v. Robinson , 47,437 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/14/12), 106 So.3d 1028, writ denied , 12–2658 (La. 5/17/13), 117 So.3d 918.

Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Glover , 47,311 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/10/12), 106 So.3d 129, writ denied , 12–2667 (La. 5/24/13), 116 So.3d 659 ; State v. Speed, 43,786 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied , 09–0372 (La. 11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299.

The trier of fact is charged to make a credibility determination and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part; the reviewing court may impinge on that discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law. State v. Casey , 99–0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022, cert. denied , 531 U.S. 840, 121 S.Ct. 104, 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000) ; State v. Woodard , 47,286 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/3/12), 107 So.3d 70, writ denied , 12–2371 (La. 4/26/13), 112 So.3d 837.

Specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm may be inferred from the extent and severity of the victim's injuries. State v. Patterson , 10–415 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1/11/11), 63 So.3d 140, writ denied , 11–0338 (La. 6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1037 ; State v. Durand , 07–4 (La. App. 5th Cir. 6/26/07),963 So.2d 1028, writ denied , 07–1545 (La. 1/25/08), 973 So.2d 753. As a state of mind, specific intent need not be proved as a fact; it may be inferred from the circumstances and the actions of the defendant. State v. Kahey , 436 So.2d 475 (La. 1983). The determination of whether the requisite intent is present is a question for the trier of fact. State v. Huizar , 414 So.2d 741 (La. 1982).

Flight and attempt to avoid apprehension are circumstances from which a trier of fact may infer a guilty conscience. State v. Garner , 45,474 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/18/10), 47 So.3d 584, writ not considered , 12–0062 (La. 4/20/12), 85 So.3d 1256.

At the trial of this matter, Shreveport Police Officer Vincent Webb testified that at approximately 10:25 p.m. on February 11, 2010, he responded to the call of shots fired at the residential intersection of Wallace and Fuller streets. An older model green Chevy Suburban was stopped at the corner, in the right lane of traffic. Visibility was impaired by snow falling. The officer saw that the driver's side window was down and a man sitting at the steering wheel was slumped over and unresponsive. Paramedics found the man had a weak pulse and removed him for transport to a nearby hospital. As the man was removed from the vehicle, Officer Webb saw shell casings fall to the ground. Officer Webb observed no broken glass on the ground and all the other windows were up. Webb saw a small amount of blood in the driver's seat after the man was removed. Officer Webb testified that, based on the type and location of the shell casings, the murder weapon was probably a semi-automatic handgun that was fired about six to eight inches from the victim. The victim, identified as Pouncy, later died.

Shreveport Police Officer Lacey Durham testified that she was stopped at a red light at the corner of Linwood and 70th Street during her patrol on February 11, 2010. She saw the brake lights on the vehicle in front of her flash a couple times and then the driver sped into the intersection, into oncoming traffic. The car then pulled into a convenience store on the opposite corner. Officer Durham pulled in behind the vehicle as the driver, wearing pants and a long shirt, jumped from the vehicle clutching something to his chest. The officer ordered the driver to stop, but he ran toward the building and then behind a trash dumpster and disappeared. Officer Durham found a hole in the fence behind the dumpster and noticed footprints in the snow on the other side. She notified nearby law enforcement, who responded that they had picked up the trail of footprints. About five minutes later, the man came walking back, now wearing only his pants and a white tank top. The man identified himself as Surcorey Odums, with a mailing address of 1514 Lash Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. Odums said he ran because he thought he had an outstanding warrant, but he came back in as a canine unit chased him. Odums told the officer that he tore his shirt on a fence.

As Officer Durham was arresting Odums, police dispatch announced that a man was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Crow, 52,817-KA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • June 26, 2019
    ...denied , 529 U.S. 1112, 120 S. Ct. 1969, 146 L. Ed. 2d 800 (2000) ; 278 So.3d 429 State v. Odums , 50,969 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/30/16), 210 So. 3d 850, writ denied , 2017-0296 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So. 3d 924 ; State v. Crews , 28,153 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96), 674 So. 2d 1082. Accordingly, appe......
  • State v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • January 15, 2020
    ...and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. State v. Odums , 50,969 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/30/16), 210 So. 3d 850, writ denied , 2017-0296 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So. 3d 924. An accused must unambiguously request counsel sufficiently clearly that a reasona......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • August 14, 2019
    ...So. 2d 916, cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1112, 120 S. Ct. 1969, 146 L. Ed. 2d 800 (2000) ; State v. Odums , 50,969 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/30/16), 210 So. 3d 850, writ denied , 2017-0296 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So. 3d 924. Accordingly, appellate courts review rulings on motions to suppress under the man......
  • State v. Harris
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • January 13, 2021
    ......163). Rather, the burden for admitting such a statement is "beyond a reasonable doubt." La. C. Cr. P. art. 703(D) ; State v. Hunt , 09-1589 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So. 3d 746 ; State v. Odums , 50,969 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/30/16), 210 So. 3d 850, writ denied , 17-0296 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So. 3d 924. It is emphasized that although the facial inadmissibility of defendant's statement was not considered by this writer, the trial court's error, by itself, would have been the basis for ......
  • 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