State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017–KA–0312,2017–KA–0312 |
| Citation | 234 So.3d 1040 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Elton WILLIAMS |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Parish of Orleans, Scott G. Vincent, Assistant District Attorney, 619 South White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA
Katherine M. Franks, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 220, Madisonville, LA 70447, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ELTON WILLIAMS
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet )
This appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the defendant for two counts of armed robbery, one count of second degree murder, and one count of second degree battery. The defendant received one hundred years for each count of armed robbery, life for second degree murder, and ten years for second degree battery. The defendant appeals contending the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of gunshot residue and by denying a challenge for cause regarding a juror, which resulted in the defendant utilizing his last peremptory challenge.
Following our review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the gunshot residue evidence following a hearing or by denying the challenge for cause, finding that the potential juror with a residence outside of Orleans Parish was qualified to serve. We affirm the judgment and the defendant's sentences for second degree murder and second degree battery. However, having found a patent error in the sentencing for the two counts of armed robbery, we vacate those sentences and remand for resentencing.
David Mejia, Nelson Mejia, and the decedent1 were repairing an automobile when Elton Williams approached asking for a cigarette. Mr. Williams then allegedly brandished a gun and demanded their money. A struggle ensued, and the decedent was shot and killed. David and Nelson detained Mr. Williams until police arrived.
Mr. Williams was charged with two counts of armed robbery, one count of second degree murder, and one count of second degree battery. Mr. Williams pled not guilty. Counsel for Mr. Williams filed motions to suppress evidence, statements, and identifications, as well as a motion for preliminary hearing and for omnibus discovery. Counsel for Mr. Williams then filed a motion for exculpatory material, a motion to inspect and photograph evidence, and a motion and order for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. The trial court denied the motions to suppress evidence, statements, and identifications, and the search warrant packet was introduced into evidence. That same date, the trial court ruled that the subpoena duces tecum could be served as modified by the court.
Counsel for Mr. Williams filed a supplemental motion to exclude DNA test results as well as a motion in limine to exclude gunshot residue testimony, or alternatively, for discovery and a Daubert hearing on the admissibility of preliminary gunshot residue analysis testimony.2 The State filed an opposition, wherein it cited articles supporting the reliability of gunshot residue testing. The trial court granted Mr. Williams' motion for a Daubert hearing. Counsel for Mr. Williams also filed a motion for written jury charges, a motion for a bill of particulars and supplemental discovery, a motion for discovery mandated by Brady v. Maryland , a motion to declare La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) unconstitutional, a motion for a jury instruction requiring a unanimous verdict, a motion for special jury charges, and motions in limine to bar the State from improper closing and rebuttal arguments.
The matter proceeded to trial at which time counsel for Mr. Williams filed additional motions, and twelve jurors were impaneled. A Daubert hearing was held outside the jurors' presence regarding preliminary gunshot residue field testing. At the hearing, Mr. Williams called Veronica Manuel from the New Orleans Crime Lab to testify. The trial court ruled that the evidence concerning the gunshot residue test was admissible, over defense counsel's objection. The trial proceeded, and a twelve-person jury found Mr. Williams guilty as charged on all four counts.
Counsel for Mr. Williams filed a motion for downward departure of the statutorily mandated sentence of life without parole and a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied, and the State filed a multiple bill.3 Counsel for Mr. Williams filed a motion to quash the multiple bill. Mr. Williams was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor on each of the armed robbery4 counts without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence; life imprisonment as to the second degree murder count, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence; and five years as to the second degree battery count.
At the multiple bill hearing, held the same day, Officer Kevin Bell, an expert in the field of fingerprint examination and comparisons, was called by the State and testified regarding Mr. Williams' fingerprint and arrest card from his prior conviction and testified that the fingerprints from those records and Mr. Williams' certified conviction packet were one in the same. The trial court denied Mr. Williams' motion to quash the multiple bill, noting his objection.
Mr. Williams was adjudicated a second offender, and the trial court vacated his prior sentence, resentencing Mr. Williams to one hundred years at hard labor as to each of the armed robbery counts without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, to run concurrently with each other; life imprisonment as to the second degree murder count, without probation, parole, or suspension of sentence; and ten years as to the second degree battery count, all to run concurrently. That same date, the trial court noted Mr. Williams' objection and granted his motion for appeal and motion for designation of record.
Mr. Williams contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of gunshot residue and by denying his challenge for cause regarding a juror who admitted to residing outside of Orleans Parish.
New Orleans Police Officer Alden Moton and his partner, Officer Cody Littleton, received a call on March 23, 2015, to respond to a homicide by shooting in the 7600 block of Alabama Street. Upon arriving on the scene in a marked police vehicle, the officers observed the decedent lying face down and unresponsive on the sidewalk. Officer Moton then located Mr. Williams in the back yard of a nearby house, where David and Nelson were detaining him. Officer Moton handcuffed Mr. Williams and called for EMS. One of the subjects detaining Mr. Williams directed Officer Moton to a gun located in the back of a pickup truck parked in a nearby driveway. Mr. Williams was initially put in the back of the police car, but after he vomited, he was put in an ambulance and taken to the hospital.
Detective Wayne Delarge testified that he was the lead investigator assigned to this homicide. When he arrived at the scene, the decedent had been pronounced dead, and his body was still on scene; Mr. Williams was being transported to the hospital. Mr. Williams received medical treatment and was tested at the hospital for gunshot residue by Veronica Manuel, a Crime Lab Technician, at Detective Delarge's direction.5 Detective Delarge later learned that the gunshot residue test conducted by Ms. Manuel yielded a "presumptive positive" result.
Detective Delarge testified that the gun recovered from the bed of the truck parked in the driveway was later discovered to be the weapon used to shoot the decedent. David Mejia, one of the robbery victims, went to the hospital to have his ear reconstructed, as Mr. Williams had bitten part of it off. Nelson Mejia, the other robbery victim and also David's son, was relocated to police headquarters for an interview. Detective Delarge spoke to Officers Moton and Littleton and canvassed the scene.
The firearm collected from the scene, which was loaded at the time it was retrieved, was subsequently sent to be tested for DNA evidence by the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab. Officers were unable to locate a spent casing at the scene, and the only ballistics evidence collected was a spent bullet retrieved from the decedent. Detective Delarge requested testing on both the firearm and the spent bullet. He and the officers searched the front yard but did not find a wallet.
On March 23, 2015, Detective Delarge obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Williams, as well as a search warrant for a buccal swab. He also obtained buccal swabs from David and Nelson, which were submitted for analysis. Three days after the incident, Detective Delarge interviewed David and Nelson, at which time Detective Delarge and Detective Leslie Guzman showed them confirmation photographs of Mr. Williams, which were signed and dated by David and Nelson.
Nelson testified that on March 23, 2015, his father, David, and the decedent were working of the air conditioning on Nelson's vehicle when they were approached by Mr. Williams, who asked for a cigarette. After obtaining a cigarette from Nelson, Mr. Williams left, returned a few minutes later bearing a firearm, put the weapon to David's back,6 and pointed it at the others. Believing that Mr. Williams intended to rob or kill them, the three men gave Mr. Williams their wallets and money.
After he gave Mr. Williams his money, Nelson attempted to take the gun away from Mr. Williams at which time Mr. Williams fired the weapon. Nelson and David then struggled with Mr. Williams for approximately twenty minutes until they were ultimately able to subdue Mr. Williams and take possession of the gun. Nelson and his father took Mr. Williams to the rear of the house where David detained him, while Nelson took the gun to David's truck and called 911.
While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chester
...v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).10 Compare State v. Williams , 17-0312 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/20/17), 234 So.3d 1040, 1054, "Even if the trial court erred in admitting the evidence regarding the preliminary gunshot residue test, we fi......
-
State v. Bauman
... ... In his brief, the defendant questions the continued constitutional viability of any statute that authorizes a conviction by a verdict of fewer than twelve jurors. The defendant concedes that the long-established holding in Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78, 103, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1907, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) declared that a defendant's "Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, [are] not violated by [a state's] decision to provide a 6man rather than a 12man jury," but nonetheless he ... ...