State v. Vaccaro

• Decision Date: 17 March 2021
• Docket Number: KA 20-170
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL VACCARO
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL VACCARO

KA 20-170

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

March 17, 2021

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, NO. CR-647-18

HONORABLE CRAIG STEVE GUNNELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Annette Fuller Roach

Louisiana Appellate Project

P. O. Box 1747

Lake Charles, LA 70602-1747

(337) 436-2900

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:

Christopher Michael Vaccaro

Michael Cade Cassidy

District Attorney - 31st Judicial District Court

P. O. Box 1388

Jennings, LA 70546

(337) 824-1893

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:

State of Louisiana

Robert Leyton Odinet

Mahtook & LaFleur, LLC

P. O. Box 3089

Lafayette, LA 70502-3089

(337) 266-2189

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:

State of Louisiana

EZELL, Judge.

Defendant, Christopher Michael Vaccaro, was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, a violation of La.R.S. 14:37.4, on September 19, 2018.The charged incident occurred on July 21, 2018.Defendant pled not guilty.

A jury convicted Defendant of the lesser offense of attempted aggravated assault with a firearm, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:37.4, on July 24, 2019.Defendant filed a motion for new trial on September 25, 2019.The motion alleged the trial court erroneously refused to admit cell phone records into evidence because Defendant did not have an expert from the phone company to explain them.It further alleged the trial court erroneously allowed into evidence a weapon that was unrelated to the incident but fit a holster matching a description by witnesses on the night of the incident.The trial court denied the motion on September 27, 2019.

On September 30, 2019, the trial court filed written reasons for sentencing.The reasons stated the trial court was sentencing Defendant to serve two years in the parish jail with all but six months suspended.The trial court also ordered Defendant to be on supervised probation for two years with these special conditions: 1) pay a $2,000 fine; 2) attend and complete anger management courses; 3) do not own and/or possess a firearm for ten years; 4) pay $150 to the Department of Probation and Parole for the cost of the pre-sentence investigation; and 5) comply with all other conditions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 895.

However, on the same date, the trial court announced at the sentencing hearing it was imposing a term of two years in the parish jail with all but one year suspended.The trial court also imposed a $2,000 fine plus court costs and ordered these special conditions: 1) pay $150 for the pre-sentencing report; 2) pay all fines, fees, and costs within the first eighteen months of probation; 3) complete and attend an angermanagement course; 4) submit to an addictive disorder clinic; 5) not possess or own a firearm for ten years; 6) pay a $60 supervision fee each month; 7) follow all other conditions of probation set out in La.Code Crim.P. art. 895; and 8) have no contact with "the three gentlemen and/or their family [sic]" during the probationary period.

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence on October 30, 2019, alleging multiple reasons the sentence was excessive.The trial court denied the motion the same day without a hearing and without comment.Defendant now seeks review of his conviction and sentence.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record.After reviewing the record, we find none.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

Defendant contends the evidence introduced at trial, when viewed under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781(1979), was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of either attempted aggravated assault with a firearm or aggravated assault with a firearm.The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged."State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91(La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221, 127 S.Ct. 1279(2007)(citingJackson, 443 U.S. 307;State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678(La.1984)).The Jackson standard of review is now legislatively embodied in La.Code Crim.P. art. 821.It does not allow the appellate court"to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder."State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6(La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521(citingState v.Robertson, 96-1048(La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1165;State v. Lubrano, 563 So.2d 847, 850(La.1990)).The appellate court's function is not to assess the credibility of witnesses or to reweigh the evidence.State v. Smith, 94-3116(La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442.

The fact finder's role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses.State v. Ryan, 07-504(La.App. 3 Cir.11/7/07), 969 So.2d 1268.Thus, other than insuring the sufficiency evaluation standard of Jackson, "the appellate court should not second-guess the credibility determination of the trier of fact," but rather, it should defer to the rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the jury.Id. at 1270(quotingState v. Lambert, 97-64, p. 5, 720 So.2d at 724, 727).Our supreme court has stated:

However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder's discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses "only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law."State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310(La.1988).In determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court must preserve "'the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence' by reviewing 'all of the evidence . . . in the light most favorable to the prosecution.'"McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. [120, 134], 130 S.Ct. 665, 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582[(2010)](quotingJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979)).When so viewed by an appellate court, the relevant question is whether, on the evidence presented at trial, "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789.Applied in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, . . . this fundamental principle of review means that when a jury "reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant[ ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt."State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680(La.1984).

State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11(La.10/22/10), 49 So.3d 372, 378(first and fifth alterations in original).

"Aggravated assault with a firearm is an assault committed with a firearm."La.R.S. 14:37.4(A)."Assault is an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentionalplacing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."La.R.S. 14:36."Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another[.]"La.R.S. 14:33.An attempt is the commission or omission of "an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object[.]"La.R.S. 14:27(A).

After dark on July 21, 2018, employees of Big South Inflatables arrived at Defendant's home to pick up a fun jump.They exchanged words with Defendant and others before they left the scene without getting the jump.When a second truck arrived, events culminated with Defendant pointing a gun at the victim.Numerous witnesses testified at trial from both sides of the situation.

Deputy Tyler Breaux

Deputy Breaux of the Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff's Office investigated the July 21, 2018 incident.He testified the Iowa Police Department contacted his office to meet at the Lacassine substation around 11:00 p.m. that night.Deputy Breaux spoke to the owner of Big South Inflatables, Ryan Monceaux, and the victim and took statements from the victim, T.K., and from witnesses, Seth Touchet and Gene Natali.¹Deputy Breaux's body cam recorded the interviews at the substation.Deputy Breaux also obtained written statements from the victim and the witnesses that night.

The body cam video showed Deputy Breaux's contact with the victim, the victim's father, and Mr. Monceaux after the incident.The victim's father was upset because other employees of Mr. Monceaux had placed his son in jeopardy.Mr. Monceaux told Deputy Breaux an employee, Aaron Murillo, had been atDefendant's house and left the scene very quickly, and the victim arrived soon afterward.Mr. Monceaux thought Defendant believed he was confronting Mr. Murillo again when the victim arrived in the second truck.

The victim told Deputy Breaux he could not back into the driveway and had to go around the block.On his second approach, Defendant tapped on the truck with a gun and put it in the victim's face when the victim lowered the window.The victim said Defendant thought Mr. Murillo had returned until his wife said the victim and his truck's occupants were not the same people.

Defendant had the victim get out of the car and call Mr. Murillo and Mr. Monceaux.Mr. Murillo said Defendant had shut the truck door on him and had "popped him in the face."Defendant wanted the victim to tell Mr. Monceaux to fire Mr. Murillo.Defendant tapped the victim on the chest and told the victim he would "take it out" on the company if Mr. Murillo returned.The victim defused the situation and apologized for Mr. Murillo's actions.Defendant let the victim retrieve the jump.

The body cam video also showed that Mr. Natali told Deputy Breaux that Defendant pulled a gun on the victim.Mr. Natali said Defendant told them "either get off my property or I'll shoot."

Deputy Breaux and his supervisor then went to the scene on Ava Lane to try to...