State v. Prater
Decision Date | 06 November 2015 |
Docket Number | 2015 KA 0079 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. HARRY E. PRATER, JR. |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville State of Louisiana
Honorable William C. Dupont, Judge Presiding
Richard J. Ward, Jr.
District Attorney
Tony Clayton
and
Elizabeth Engolio
Assistant District Attorneys
Plaquemine, Louisiana
Counsel for Appellee
State of Louisiana
Mary E. Roper
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Harry E. Prater, Jr.
Harry E. Prater, Jr.
Defendant, Harry E. Prater, Jr., was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of second-degree murder of Ronald Harrell (count I), a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30.1, and one count of second-degree murder of Junius Dedrick, III, also a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30.1 (count II). At arraignment, defendant entered a plea of not guilty, but following trial, he was found guilty as charged by a unanimous jury on both counts. On each count, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The trial court further ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. He now appeals with two counseled assignments of error: first, to the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, and second, to the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial. Further, in a pro se brief, defendant assigns error to the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and to an alleged sequestration violation. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences.
On September 24, 2012, at approximately 6:42 a.m., Iberville Parish Sheriff's Deputy Erik Tankersly was driving on LA Highway 1 southbound when he observed a black, 2005 Mazda car, "sitting in the cane field on the east side of LA 1 North, kind of slanted into the cane field." Deputy Tankersly testified that "as [he] was going by [he] noticed that the yield sign was laying in between one of the turnarounds and there were some deep trenches that led around where the car was." Initially believing that a traffic accident occurred, Deputy Tankersly turned around, approached the driver's side door, looked in, and observed a black male, later identified as Ronald Harrell, who was not breathing and was slumped towards his right side. Deputy Tankersly then observed another black male, later identified as Junius Dedrick, III, who "had a hole in the side of his head, a rather large hole and a couple of what looked like bullet holes in the chest area." The vehicle's emergency flashers or headlights were not operating at the time Deputy Tankersly discovered the vehicle. Additionally, he did not observe any guns insidethe vehicle, nor were any other vehicles in the area. Deputy Tankersly immediately returned to his patrol unit and notified his supervisors.
Detective Lori Morgan, a crime scene investigator with the Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office, testified that she responded to the scene and assisted in the investigation by taking photographs. After speaking with, and obtaining statements from, various "witness[es]" at the scene, Detective Morgan began searching for a red T-shirt. During a helicopter search of the area, in which Detective Morgan participated, a red T-shirt bearing mud and blood stains was located. Detective Morgan also attended the autopsies, where she collected the bullet fragments from the victims' bodies. Detective Morgan sent the fragments, as well as the red T-shirt, for testing with the crime lab.
Later that morning, following Deputy Tankersly's discovery, Iberville Parish Sheriff's Detective Ronnie Hebert responded to the scene as the lead detective. Detective Hebert testified that upon observing the crime scene, he did not see any evidence that would indicate that the victims were shot in self-defense. While Detective Hebert was investigating the crime scene, defendant called the sheriff's office, asking to speak with a detective, stating that he was in the car with the victims the night before, and wanting to possibly "shed some light on what happened." Detective Hebert testified that during defendant's first interview on September 24, 2012, defendant was not a suspect, and was not under arrest. During this interview, defendant told Detective Hebert that he did not know whether the victims had a gun the previous night. He also stated that his girlfriend threw his cell phone into the Mississippi River. In defendant's second interview, on September 28, 2015, he was a suspect, arrested, and read his Miranda1 rights before speaking with Detective Hebert. During this interview, defendant did not tell Detective Hebert what happened on the night of the incident, and again did not say he shot the victims in self-defense. However, defendant did state, at theconclusion of the interview, that, "if it wasn't them it was going to be me," and that "it wasn't no way out."
Vincent Jerome Collins testified that on September 23, 2012, the day before the incident, three men, one of whom was wearing a red shirt, came to his residence. Collins testified that the other men, one of whom Collins recognized as the victim Ronald Harrell, introduced the individual in the red shirt as one of his "partners." Next, Eurika Mitchell testified that on September 23, 2012, she was at Club Secrets when an individual in a red shirt, whom she positively identified at trial as defendant, came up to her and gave her a card with the name "Harry" on it. Mitchell testified that defendant made no attempt to hide his identity during their conversation.
John Nguyen testified that he and defendant have been friends since they were teenagers, and that during the early morning hours of September 24, 2012, defendant called him to pick him up "somewhere over in Plaquemine." Nguyen told defendant that, because his children were home, he could not help him. Nguyen testified that defendant called him a second time, but that he did not speak with defendant as he missed the call. Nguyen also testified that defendant owned a revolver which he called his "baby." Later in the morning on September 24, 2012, defendant told Nguyen that he was going to see if anyone wanted to buy his "baby." Nguyen testified that he visited defendant two months prior to trial (approximately March 2014), and that defendant never told him that he had to kill the victims in self-defense.
Brandy Singleton, who has a child with defendant, testified that at approximately 2:00 a.m., she drove to Plaquemine and picked up defendant in an unfamiliar area. At the time, defendant was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans. Singleton testified that after she drove defendant to his home, he went inside, took a shower, and then returned to her car. The two then drove to her house and spent the night. Later, the following morning, Singleton received a phone call from defendant, informing her that he had spoken with detectives about the shooting because he was with the victims before they died. Singleton indicatedthat during this conversation, defendant asked her to tell the detectives that she broke his phone, when in actuality, defendant had thrown his phone away. Furthermore, defendant instructed Singleton to tell the detectives that she did not know what time she picked him up on the night of the shooting. Lastly, Singleton testified that from the night of the shooting to the day of trial, defendant never told her that he had to shoot the two victims in self-defense.
Charles Watson, a firearms examiner and crime scene investigator with the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab, was qualified as an expert at trial in firearm and ballistics examination. Watson testified that he examined an intact bullet retrieved from defendant's home - a .41 magnum caliber bullet. He noted that the .41 magnum is a "fairly uncommon cartridge," and that in his sixteen years with the crime lab, he has only seen three or four firearms chambered for the .41 magnum round. Watson testified the Smith and Wesson Model 47 revolver is the only currently produced firearm chambered for the .41 magnum. In his investigation of the murders, Watson recovered five bullets from both autopsies and the Mazda car. Watson testified that after comparing the bullet retrieved from defendant's home and one of the bullets recovered from one of the victim's forearms, the two bullets were of the same weight, profile, shape, and dimension. While he could not affirmatively state whether all five recovered bullets were from the same manufacturing batch as the intact bullet retrieved from defendant's home, Watson did testify that they were "very, very similar in manufacture and origin." Additionally, Watson affirmatively stated that four of the five recovered bullets were fired from the same firearm.2 Furthermore, in his investigation of the Mazda car, Watson noted that the back glass was not shot out, and bullets were not recovered from the back seat, but rather all identified bullets were located in the front seat. Lastly, while he did not have a firearm to analyze, Watson testified therecovered bullets were consistent with being fired from a .41 caliber firearm, which he opined would produce wounds that were not survivable.
Dr. Alfredo Suarez testified at trial, and was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. Dr. Suarez stated that he did not conduct the victims' autopsies, but he did review both autopsy reports. Concerning Junius Dedrick, Dr. Suarez testified there were two gunshot wounds in his upper chest, which entered in his back, and exited in his upper abdomen and right thigh. Additionally, Dr. Suarez identified the fatal shot as the one to Dedrick's head, because it separated the brainstem. Regarding Ronald Harrell, the driver of the vehicle, Dr. Suarez testified that the fatal gunshot was the one to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial