State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019 KA 0362,2019 KA 0362 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. FITZPATRICK P. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Helena State of Louisiana
Case No. 19375A
The Honorable M. Douglas Hughes, Judge Presiding
Bertha M. Hillman
Covington, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Fitzpatrick P. Williams
Patrick Williams
Angola, Louisiana
Appellant
Pro Se
Scott M. Perrilloux
District Attorney
Patricia Amos
Assistant District Attorney
Amite, Louisiana
Counsel for Appellee
State of Louisiana
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.
Defendant, Fitzpatrick Williams, was charged by bill of indictment with second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. He pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a term of life imprisonment at hard labor, to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
On the evening of October 8, 2007, Darnell Williams, Hakeem Lee, Myron Hughes, and a few others gathered at Ronny Whitley's mobile home on Calmes Road in St. Helena Parish to barbecue.1 During the course of the evening, Ronny, Hakeem, and Myron became engaged in an argument with Samuel Williams and Jesse Thomas while standing near the road in front of Ronny's home. After the argument, Samuel and Jesse left.
About fifteen to twenty minutes later, the two men returned to the street in front of Ronny's home, accompanied by defendant. Defendant confronted Myron while armed with a chrome handgun. During the confrontation, defendant fired the handgun, fatally shooting Myron in the right leg. Myron's autopsy revealed that he . . .
There was evidence introduced at trial to indicate Jesse was also shot, though it is unknown by whom.
Defendant appeals his conviction, asserting one counseled assignment of error and three pro se assignments of error.
In his counseled assignment of error, defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the conviction. Defendant further asserts that the record supports a finding of justifiable homicide. Alternatively, defendant argues that the evidence only establishes that defendant committed manslaughter. Additionally, in his first pro se assignment of error, defendant reiterates that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and further argues that the testimony introduced against him at trial was neither credible nor reliable.
A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates Due Process. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; La. Const. art. I, § 2. The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Jackson standard of review, incorporated in La. Code Crim. P. art. 821, is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for reasonable doubt. When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that, in order to convict, the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Dyson, 2016-1571 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/2/17), 222 So.3d 220, 228, writ denied, 2017-1399 (La. 6/15/18), 257 So.3d 685. When direct evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to theprosecution, the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Brothers, 2017-0870 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/1/17), 233 So.3d 110, 113, writ denied, 2017-2160 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 803.
An appellate court is constitutionally precluded from acting as a "thirteenth juror" in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases; that determination rests solely on the sound discretion of the trier of fact. State v. Cockerham, 2017-0535 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/17), 231 So.3d 698, 705, writ denied, 2017-1802 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1035. The trier of fact is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. The fact that the record contains evidence that conflicts with the testimony accepted by the trier of fact does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient. Unless there is internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the factfinder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Moultrie, 2014-1535 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/14/17), 234 So.3d 142, 146, writ denied, 2018-0134 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So.3d 1252. Moreover, when there is conflicting witness testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Ruffen, 2018-1280 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/28/19), 2019 WL 968412, at *4, writ denied, 2019-00564 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 971.
Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable when committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger. La. R.S. 14:20(A)(1). However, a person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficultycannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. La. R.S. 14:21. When self-defense is raised as an issue by a defendant, the State has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the homicide was not perpetrated in self-defense. The issue is whether or not a rational factfinder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not kill the victim in self-defense. State v. Patorno, 2001-2585 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 141, 147.
At trial, the State presented the testimony of three eyewitnesses, Darnell, Hakeem, and Ronny. Darnell testified that, on the evening of October 8, 2007, he was barbequing at Ronny's mobile home, which was located on Calmes Road in St. Helena Parish. With him that night were Ronny, Hakeem, Trevor Lee, Brandon Perry, and Myron. Myron lived across the street from Ronny. During the evening hours, Darnell noticed that Ronny, Hakeem, and Myron were in the road in front of Ronny's home having a verbal argument with two men, Samuel and Jesse.3 When asked whether the altercation was between Myron and Samuel or Myron and Jesse, Darnell indicated that he was not sure, but that he thought Myron had been arguing with Samuel. The argument subsided, and Samuel and Jesse left the scene.
About fifteen to twenty minutes later, however, the two men returned accompanied by defendant. Darnell saw defendant approach with a chrome handgun in his hand. According to Darnell, defendant and Myron exchanged words, "kind of bumped chests[,]" and defendant "backed up, pointed the gun in [Myron's] chest, aimed it down, shot." Darnell explained that afterwards, he saw Myron fire a gun "a good bit of times" after he had been shot. Darnell fled to a nearby car, armed himself, and shot into the air because he saw defendant continuing to approach Myron. Darnellunequivocally testified that he saw defendant shoot first and that Myron was not the aggressor in their confrontation. Darnell saw Myron attempt to run away after being shot, but fell to his knees. He also saw Ronny start attending to Myron, but Darnell admitted he left soon thereafter. Although Jesse was also shot, Darnell testified that he did not see this happen.
Hakeem testified that he was at Ronny's home on the night of the shooting. According to Hakeem, Myron was present along with Hakeem's brothers Trevor, Ronny, and Darnell. Hakeem testified that he was involved in an initial verbal altercation with Samuel and Jesse, the subject of which he did not recall. Samuel and Jesse eventually left, only to return soon thereafter with an armed defendant. He explained that he saw Myron and defendant approach each other and tussle for the gun defendant was carrying. The two broke apart, defendant stepped back, aimed down, and fired two shots with a chrome gun. Hakeem speculated that it did not appear that defendant wanted to shoot Myron. After the first two shots, Hakeem ran away and heard "lots" of additional gunshots, but did not see who was firing them. Though he initially stayed at the scene, he did not know Myron or Jesse had been shot. He left when police arrived.
Ronny also testified on behalf of the State. Ronny was Myron's cousin, owned the residence where the shooting occurred, and was present that night. Ronny testified that Jesse and Myron had had conflicts prior to that night. Ronny explained that Myron was attempting to date Jesse's sister, Natasha Brumfield.
That night, Ronny saw Jesse pull up and start "mouthing off[.]" Jesse then left and came back in a car, parked down the...
To continue reading
Request your trial