State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 15681-KA,15681-KA |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Cameron WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Jack E. Nossaman, Shreveport, for appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Paul J. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Lee Irvin and Catherine M. Estopinal, Asst. Dist. Attys., Shreveport, for appellee.
Before JASPER E. JONES and NORRIS, JJ., and McCLENDON, J. Pro Tem.
Defendant, Cameron Williams appeals a conviction of battery of a police officer in violation of La.R.S. 14:34.2. The sole issue presented in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence presented to sustain the conviction. After applying the appropriate standard of review, we find that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the conviction.
La.R.S. 14:34.2 provides:
A. Battery of a police officer is a battery committed without the consent of the victim when the offender has reasonable grounds to believe the victim is a commissioned police officer acting in the performance of his duty.
B. Whoever commits the crime of battery of a police officer shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned not less than fifteen days nor more than six months without benefit of suspension of sentence. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, in order to convict a person of the crime of battery of a police officer it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a battery was committed (2) without the consent of the victim (3) when the person committing the battery has reasonable grounds to believe that the victim is a commissioned police officer acting in the performance of his duty.
The defense presented at trial was two-fold; that is, (1) that defendant denied hitting the complaining party and (2) that defendant did not know that the complainant was a police officer acting in the performance of his duty.
The testimony at trial as to the events resulting in this charge is conflicting. Officer John Oden of the Shreveport Police Department testified that on November 19, 1982, he was an officer who was also employed as a security guard at the Georgetown West Apartments in Shreveport. At approximately 10:30 p.m., he received a call from one of the residents of the apartment complex complaining about loud noise emanating from Apartment 1502, the apartment directly below that of the complaining tenant. Oden then dressed and proceeded to the area where he met the complainant, Jesse McGrew. Oden was dressed in a jacket, blue jeans and a police gunbelt and was carrying a long flashlight. After Oden identified himself to McGrew, he went to Apartment 1502 and knocked on the door. Receiving no response, Oden walked to a car parked in front of the building which was occupied and had its headlights on with its motor running. Oden pulled out his police identification which he showed to the occupants and identified himself to Charles Williams as a police officer who was the resident security guard. Williams exited the vehicle appearing to have been drinking. Oden then informed him of the complaint after which Williams began cursing Oden. Oden then informed Williams that he would be evicted on Monday after which Oden proceeded to walk away from the vehicle followed by Williams who was yelling and threatening Oden. Oden arrested Williams for simple drunk after again advising him that he was a police officer.
Before Oden had an opportunity to place Williams in handcuffs, Cameron Williams, who is the defendant herein and the brother of Charles, approached Oden and attempted to dissuade Oden from arresting his brother. Oden responded that it was too late because Charles was already under arrest. Defendant then cursed Oden and threatened to do him bodily harm. Oden ordered defendant to leave three times. When he refused, Oden informed defendant that he was a police officer and that defendant was under arrest for trespassing. After defendant was arrested, he again threatened Oden with bodily harm and made a move toward him with clasped hands. In an attempt to protect himself, Oden responded by taking a swing at defendant with a flashlight which missed defendant and hit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...appellate courts will not review the credibility determinations of the trier of fact. La. Const. art. V, § 10 (B); State v. Williams , 448 So.2d 753, 755 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1984). The jury's decision to accept or reject a witness's testimony is given great deference. State v. Rogers , 494 So.2......
-
State v. Griffin
...supra, and does not extend to credibility determinations made by the trier of fact. LSA-Const. Art. 5, Sec. 5(C); State v. Williams, 448 So.2d 753 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984). A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or......
-
State v. Gay
...supra, and does not extend to credibility determinations made by the trier of fact. La. Const. art. 5, § 10(B); State v. Williams, 448 So.2d 753 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984). A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or i......
-
State v. Furgerson
...supra, and does not extend to credibility determinations made by the trier of fact. La. Const. art. 5, § 10(B); State v. Williams, 448 So.2d 753 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984). A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or i......