State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 21 January 1998 |
| Citation | 708 So.2d 703 |
| Parties | 96-1023 La |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Marilyn Michele Fournet, Baton Rouge, for Applicant.
Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, Douglas P. Moreau, District Attorney, John W. Sinquefiled, Gwendolyn K. Brown, John A. Cannon, Kenner, for Respondent.
[96-1023 La. 1] KIMBALL, Justice. *
On July 13, 1994, an East Baton Rouge Parish grand jury indicted Jimmy Ray Williams for the first degree murder of Gordon Lawless in violation of La. R.S. 14:30. After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as charged. After a sentencing hearing, the same jury that determined the issue of guilt, unanimously returned a verdict of death, finding as a single aggravating circumstance that the defendant was engaged in the perpetration of an attempted armed robbery. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to death in accordance with the jury's recommendation.
On direct appeal to this court, 1 the defendant raises one hundred twenty-nine errors and seeks a reversal of his conviction and sentence. Finding no reversible errors, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
On June 15, 1994, the defendant and a 15-year-old acquaintance, Travis Hampton, decided to rob a 688 Auto Parts delivery truck driven by Gordon Lawless. Lawless had just finished making a delivery to the 688 Auto Parts store on Government Street in Baton Rouge and was filling out paper work in the cab of his truck in the parking lot when the defendant [96-1023 La. 2] approached the driver's side door and asked him for a cigarette. Lawless gave the defendant a pack of cigarettes and told him to take one; the defendant removed a cigarette from the pack and handed the pack to Hampton who also removed a cigarette. As he returned the pack to Lawless, the defendant pulled out a nine-millimeter handgun and demanded money. Lawless did not respond, and the gun fired. The single shot, traveling generally from left to right, struck Lawless on the left side of the mouth, traveled into the oral cavity, where it fractured two teeth and part of the jaw. The bullet then lacerated the tongue, perforated the jugular vein, and lacerated the internal cartoid artery before exiting behind Lawless's ear. Lawless drowned in his own blood. The defendant and Hampton then fled the scene.
The following day, detectives received an anonymous tip implicating the defendant in the incident. Acting on the tip, the officers picked up the defendant at his girlfriend's apartment and took him to the police station for questioning. There, he denied any involvement in the shooting and was released.
Later that evening, officers learned of Hampton's possible involvement in the shooting. Hampton turned himself in and implicated the defendant as the triggerman. The following day, the police arrested the defendant and again brought him to the station for questioning. The defendant then gave the officers another statement, admitting that he shot Lawless, but claiming that the gun discharged accidentally when he slipped while attempting to climb up to the driver's door of the truck. 2
During the investigation, detectives also learned from Hampton about the defendant's involvement in the shooting of Earl Maples, a local funeral home director, hours before the Lawless shooting. Maples, who survived the shooting, testified that the defendant flagged him down as he ran errands in preparation for a fishing trip with a friend. The defendant requested a ride and, Maples consented. As Maples drove, the defendant engaged Maples in conversation and asked Maples how much money he had with him. Maples, who had several hundred dollars in the truck, responded that he had about thirty dollars on his person. The defendant then pulled out a gun and ordered Maples out of the truck. After Maples surrendered the money in his pocket, the defendant demanded that Maples also relinquish the keys to the truck. Maples [96-1023 La. 3] attempted to escape on foot but the defendant caught him and ordered him back to the truck. Maples returned to the truck reached for a gun he had hidden under the seat, and turned to confront the defendant. The defendant shot Maples in the head and fled the scene. Maples was subsequently unable to identify the defendant as the shooter in a photographic lineup, but later claimed that he in fact recognized the defendant but was afraid to identify him. Fingerprints recovered from the truck matched the defendant's prints. Evidence of the Maple's robbery was admitted during the guilt phase pursuant to State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973). At the trial's penalty phase, the defendant admitted shooting Maples.
The jury found the defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Gordon Lawless on May 10, 1995. The following day, it returned a death verdict.
Assignment of Error Numbers 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 38, 42,
43, 49, 53, 61, 62, and 64
In his first argument, the defendant claims the trial court erred in granting the State's challenges for cause as to four venirepersons based on their attitudes regarding the death penalty. 3 Specifically, the defendant claims Lemar Proctor, Theresa Stewart, Susan McAdams [96-1023 La. 4] and Francis Lewis, were erroneously excluded for cause.
The defendant complains that the trial court erred when it excluded Lemar Proctor for cause because of his attitudes regarding the death penalty. However, trial counsel submitted to the challenge without argument. Because the defendant failed to object contemporaneously to the challenge, we decline to address this assignment of error. La.Code Crim.P. art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201, p. 7 (La.), 669 So.2d 364, 369, cert denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 162, 136 L.Ed.2d 106 (1996).
The defendant complains about the court's ruling on a cause challenge based on hardship to prospective juror Theresa Stewart. He also contends the hardship exclusion was merely a pretext for an otherwise impermissible challenge for cause based on Ms. Stewart's reservations against imposing the death penalty. However, the record reveals Ms. Stewart testified she had a 13-year-old son who was "at a critical point" in school, 4 and she took him to be tutored three times a week. She further stated her husband could not take him to tutoring because of his work schedule.
The trial court is authorized to excuse a person from jury service either before or after selection to the general venire or jury pool if such service would result in undue hardship or extreme inconvenience. The court is permitted to take this action on its own initiative or on the recommendation of an official or employee designated by the court. See La.Sup.Ct. R. 26; La.Code Crim.P. art. 783(B); State v. Brown, 414 So.2d 726, 728 (La.1982). The trial court is vested with broad discretion in excusing prospective jurors for undue hardship. State v. Ivy, 307 So.2d 587, 590 (La.1975).
In the instant case, the court exercised its discretion and determined, based on Ms. Stewart's answers, it would constitute an undue hardship for her to serve on the jury. As to the defendant's claim the hardship challenge was merely a pretext, he fails to make any showing of fraud or collusion resulting in prejudice. See State v. Sheppard, 350 So.2d 615, 650 (La.1977). [96-1023 La. 5] Accordingly, the defendant's claim regarding this juror's dismissal lacks merit.
The United States Supreme Court announced the standard for the exclusion of potential jurors in death penalty cases in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). However in 1985, because of a "general confusion surrounding the application of Witherspoon," Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 418, 105 S.Ct. 844, 849, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the Court revisited the issue in Wainwright v. Witt. In Witt, the Court began by stating that "recent opinions of this Court demonstrate no ritualistic adherence to a requirement that a prospective juror make it 'unmistakably clear ... that [she] would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment.' " Id. at 419, 105 S.Ct. at 849 (emphasis supplied). The court also recognized, as it had previously done in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), that the State has a "legitimate interest in obtaining jurors who could follow their instructions and obey their oaths." Id. at 44, 100 S.Ct. at 2526. Therefore, "[t]he state may insist ... that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court." Id. at 45, 100 S.Ct. at 2526. The Witt Court then explicitly recognized that it had previously placed the lower courts in a very difficult position.
The state of this case law leaves the trial courts with the difficult task of distinguishing between prospective jurors whose opposition to capital punishment will not allow them to apply the law or view the facts impartially and jurors who, though opposed to capital punishment, will nevertheless conscientiously apply the law to the facts adduced at trial.
Id., at 421, 105 S.Ct. at 850. Therefore, the Court took the opportunity to clarify the Witherspoon decision.
[T]he proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment ... is whether the juror's views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath."
(quoting from Adams ) Id. at 424, 105 S.Ct. at 852. Significantly, the Court explicitly noted that "this standard does not have to be proved with 'unmistakable clarity.' " Id., 105 S.Ct. at 852.
This is because determinations of juror bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism. What...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKelton
... ... { 59} First, he says that the late disclosure violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A defendant's confrontation 148 Ohio St.3d 271 rights may be "legitimately constrained" by rules of discovery. State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 18, 490 N.E.2d 906 (1986). We have already rejected a confrontation challenge to the predecessor to Crim.R. 16(D), former Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(e), 34 Ohio St.2d li, at lii-liii, which permitted trial courts to control the disclosure of information that might subject a witness to ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. Goodwin
... ... 8 Before the instant trial, Mrs. Scramuzza pled guilty to first degree murder with the agreement by the State to not seek the death penalty and the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. 9 The injuries to the victim's wrists included banding and ... 44 B. AEDPA Standards of Review Apply in this Case As discussed above, the AEDPA's deferential standards of review under 2254(d) and Williams 45 apply only to claims adjudicated on the merits by the state courts. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Thus, the deferential AEDPA standards of review do not ... ...
-
Marcel v. Vannoy
...955 So.2d 90, 125-26, cert denied, 552 U.S. 994, 128 S.Ct. 494, 169 L.Ed.2d 346 (2007); State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La. 1/21/98), 708 So.2d 703, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 99, 142 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998). As to the first requirement, in this case, the prior acts were similar to the off......
-
State v. Taylor
... ... This court, and other Louisiana courts have admitted evidence of other crimes under the "plan" exception in numerous and varied circumstances. For example, in State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1998), 708 So.2d 703, 725-726, evidence defendant committed a robbery which involved a gun, just hours before the crime charged, was held admissible in a first degree murder prosecution. The court in Williams noted that even though the evidence of the crime was inadmissible ... ...