State v. Smith
| Docket Number | 23-KA-399 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SHANE SMITH |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
1
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
SHANE SMITH
No. 23-KA-399
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit
December 27, 2023
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 94,880, DIVISION "D" HONORABLE M. LAUREN LEMMON, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA Joel T. Chaisson, II Louis G. Authement
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR, SHANE SMITH Lauren D. Rogers
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson
FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER JUDGE
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION OF SENTENCING RESTRICTIONS
FHW
JGG
MEJ
Defendant, Shane Smith, seeks supervisory review of his misdemeanor conviction and sentence for battery of a dating partner, first offense, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.9. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence, except that we remand this matter and instruct the trial court to impose at least forty-eight hours of the sentence without the benefit of parole in accordance with La. R.S. 14:34.9(C), as more fully set forth in our Errors Patent Review below.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 20, 2022, the St. Charles Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with battery of a dating partner, first offense, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.9. On that same date, defendant entered a plea of not guilty. On November 10, 2022, after a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as charged. On that same date, the court sentenced defendant to six months in the parish prison with all but the first forty-eight hours being suspended.[1]Defendant seeks supervisory review of his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him.
FACTS
At trial, the victim, Shonette Sam, testified that she had known defendant since high school and had been romantically involved with defendant for approximately two years before the incident that led to defendant's arrest. Ms. Sam testified that, on May 6, 2021, defendant asked her for a ride from Hanhville to Des Allemands. Ms. Sam picked defendant up in her vehicle and drove to her house.[2] When she arrived home, she went into the house while defendant waited in the car. Ms. Sam testified that, a few minutes later, defendant walked into her
house and began making himself at home-sitting on the sofa, opening doors, and jumping on her bed. At some point while defendant was jumping on Ms. Sam's bed, she became frustrated and told him to get off the bed. She testified that, at that time, defendant "picked [her] up, slammed [her] on the ground."[3] Ms. Sam further testified that, as she continuously tried to "get [defendant] out" of her house, he punched her in the face, causing a knot and swelling near her eye.[4] She testified that after defendant left the house, she immediately called 9-1-1. She stated that while she was on the phone with 9-1-1, defendant returned and kicked the front door in, causing the frame and lock to break.[5] She denied that defendant returned to the home to retrieve his cell phone.
Ms. Sam testified affirmatively when asked if she had a "romantic relationship" with defendant. When asked about the nature of the romantic relationship, she responded, "We were just having sex." After the May 6, 2021 incident, Ms. Sam and defendant continued to have communication and contact. She testified that the two of them had "the same contact as before.. .everything. Texting, calling, sex. Same." Ms. Sam testified that in 2022, she had two surgical procedures and that defendant visited her after the procedures. She further testified that she spent Mardi Gras of 2022 with defendant and at some point in time had dinner with defendant at a restaurant. She stated that, on July 9 and 10, 2022, she spent time with defendant at bars in Killona, Edgard, and Kenner shooting pool.[6]Ms. Sam testified generally that, "Everywhere I go, Shane's there. If I go to Hot Spot, he's there. If I go to Killona, he's there. If I go to St. Rose, he's there. If I go to Kenner, he's there. He's everywhere I go." Ms. Sam stated that, approximately
four months prior to trial, she stopped contacting defendant and they have not communicated since.
At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found defendant guilty as charged and sentenced defendant to six months in the parish prison with all but the first forty-eight hours suspended.[7]
DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks supervisory review of his misdemeanor conviction for battery of a dating partner, first offense, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.9, assigning two errors. First, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, pointing to the absence of any police report, 9-1-1 recordings, or sufficient physical evidence. Second, defendant argues that his relationship with the victim was casual and purely sexual and, thus, Ms. Sam did not meet the definition of a "dating partner" as defined under La. R.S. 14:34.9(B); thus, defendant asserted that the State failed to prove each element of the crime under La. R.S. 14:34.9.
In defendant's first assignment of error, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial to support his conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine if the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of both, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mickel, 09-953 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/11/10), 41 So.3d 532, 534, writ denied, 10-1357 (La. 1/7/11), 52 So.3d 885; State v. Ordonez, 16-619 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/17), 215 So.3d 473, 477.
When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, "[A]ssuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." The reviewing court is not required to determine whether a defendant's suggested hypothesis of innocence offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Baham, 14-653 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/15), 169 So.3d 558, 566, writ denied, 15-40 (La. 3/24/16), 190 So.3d 1189.
The credibility of witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trier of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness; the credibility of the witnesses will not be reweighed on appeal. State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d 1052, 1056. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Dixon, 07-915 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/08), 982 So.2d 146, 153, writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Dixon v. State, 08-987 (La. 1/30/09), 999 So.2d 745.
Defendant was convicted of battery of a dating partner, first offense. La. R.S. 14:34.9 defines battery of a dating partner as "the intentional use of force or violence committed by one dating partner upon the person of another dating partner." Criminal intent may be specific or general. La. R.S. 14:10. La. R.S. 14:34.9 does not specify if it is a general or specific intent crime. In the absence of a qualifying provision, the terms "intent" and "intentional" reference towards general intent. La. R.S. 14:11. General criminal intent is present whenever there is specific intent, and also when the circumstances indicate that the offender, in the ordinary course of human experience, must have adverted to the prescribed
criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act. La. R.S. 14:10(2). In general intent crimes, "the criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction is shown by the very doing of the acts which have been declared criminal." State v. Harrell, 18-63 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18), 258 So.3d 1007 (citing State v. Howard, 94-23 (La. 6/3/94), 638 So.2d 216, 217).
At trial, Ms. Sam testified that when she tried to stop defendant from jumping on her bed, he picked her up and slammed her on the ground. She further testified that when she told defendant to leave her home, he responded by punching her in the face, which caused a knot and swelling near her eye. The State introduced into evidence a photograph of Ms. Sam's eye taken after the incident. To demonstrate the escalation of events that evening, the State also introduced into evidence photographs of Ms. Sam's broken door frame, which supported her testimony that defendant attempted to return to the residence after she told him to leave. We find that none of the physical evidence introduced at trial conflicts with Ms. Sam's testimony.
As stated above, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a conviction. See State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La. 4/3/02), 815 So.2d 50, 56 (affirming the...
To continue reading
Request your trial