State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | 19-318 |
| Citation | 286 So.3d 637 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Marquez WILSON |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Paula Corley Marx, Louisiana Appellate Project, Post Office Box 82389, Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-2389, (337) 991-9757, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Robert Marquez Wilson
Trent Brignac, District Attorney, Post Office Drawer 780, Ville Platte, Louisiana 70586, (337) 363-3438, Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana
Jeffrey M. Landry, Attorney General, Colin Clark, J. Taylor Gray, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office Box 94005, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804, (225) 326-6200, Counsel For Appellee: State of Louisiana
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence.For the following reasons, Defendant's conviction is reversed, his sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded for a new trial.
This matter involves a shooting that occurred in Ville Platte on April 23, 2017.Prior to the shooting, there was an altercation between Defendant, Robert Marquez Wilson, and Santiago Thomas.After the shooting, Santiago found a bullet that had pierced the back of his car.A bystander, Kathy Weston, was also shot and killed.On April 11, 2018, Defendant was indicted for second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1.The State charged Defendant with other offenses by bill of information although the trial court ordered these to be severed from the murder charge on October 1, 2018.On that same day, a jury was selected, and trial commenced one day later.On October 5, 2018, the jury returned a responsive verdict finding Defendant guilty of manslaughter, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31.On January 17, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years at hard labor.Defendant appealed.
On appeal, Defendant asserts the following three errors:
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 there are no errors patent.
We will address Defendant's second assignment of error first because it alleges the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction.Such arguments must be addressed before others because a finding of insufficient evidence would result in Defendant's acquittal.State v. Hearold , 603 So.2d 731(La.1992).
Sufficiency questions are analyzed as follows:
When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing denied , 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126(1979);State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King , 436 So.2d 559(La.1983);State v. Duncan , 420 So.2d 1105(La.1982);State v. Moody , 393 So.2d 1212(La.1981).It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.SeeState ex rel. Graffagnino , 436 So.2d 559(citingState v. Richardson , 425 So.2d 1228(La.1983) ).In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Kennerson , 96-1518, p. 5(La.App. 3 Cir.5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.
Defendant alleges the State's witnesses were not credible in contrast to his witnesses, whom he asserts were credible.Defendant's trial testimony along with the testimony of his brother, Tieberrious Wilson, Ladonna Holmes, Ebony Soileau, and Shawn Thomas, indicate that Defendant was indoors when they heard shots fired.Defendant suggests the jury's conclusions were not rational while also acknowledging that appellate courts will not second-guess a fact finder's credibility determinations.Defendant contends that because his identity as the shooter was an issue at trial, the State was required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.State v. Draughn , 05-1825(La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, cert. denied , 552 U.S. 1012, 128 S.Ct. 537, 169 L.Ed.2d 377(2007).
Defendant notes the inconsistencies within and among the testimonies of the State's witnesses.Specifically, he points to Nakaya Joseph's prior statement that Santiago also fired his weapon.According to Defendant, Joseph's story changed at trial where she denied that Santiago fired any shots and admitted to lying in her previous statement because she was told to do so by Jaquincy Jack, also known as "Mule."Defendant further alleges that Jalen Hill was motivated to help the State because multiple charges were pending against him.Defendant explains that Hill provided two prior statements where he did not implicate Defendant with the shooting at issue.According to Defendant, Hill provided a third statement after charges were filed against him, i.e., Hill.Defendant notes that in this third statement, Hill indicated that he handed a weapon to Defendant, who then began shooting.
On review, the trial court was presented with the testimony of Santiago Thomas.According to Santiago, he was driving his car in Ville Platte on the night of April 23, 2017, when he saw Defendant and Defendant's brother, Tieberrious Wilson, standing near a stop sign.Santiago testified that an object hit his car, which caused him to exit his car and get into an argument with Defendant and Tieberrious.Santiago returned to his car and drove away when he heard gunshots.Santiago testified that he proceeded to his cousin's house later that evening where Defendant also ended up.Once again, an altercation or a fight ensued between Defendant and Santiago, according to his testimony.Thereafter, Santiago testified that his girlfriend called him and instructed him to go to the hospital where police were waiting to question him.
According to Santiago, it was at the hospital where he realized the back of his car contained a bullet hole.Evidence in the record reveals that a bullet struck one of Santiago's taillights, passed through the trunk and back seat, and ended in his center console.Santiago testified that it was also at the hospital where he learned that Weston, a bystander at the shooting scene, was dead.Medical testimony in the record reveals that Weston's death was caused by a bullet which passed through her aorta.
The trial court was also presented with the testimony from a juvenile, Jalen Hill, also known as "Speedy."Hill testified that he witnessed an argument between Defendant and Santiago.Hill stated that as Santiago drove away, Defendant asked him for a weapon.Hill acknowledged that he gave Defendant a Smith & Wesson gun, after which Santiago had "spun the block" and "came back."Hill testified that he took off running because he heard some shots coming from the parking lot.According to Hill, he retrieved the gun from Defendant later that day and subsequently sold it in Opelousas.Hill identified the gun as a Smith & Wesson nine-millimeter gun.
According to the record, investigators were unable to recover the murder weapon.Evidence and testimony reveal, however, that nine-millimeter bullets fired from a Smith & Wesson gun were recovered from both Weston's body and Santiago's car.Although testing did not conclusively establish the bullets were fired from the same weapon, casings found at the scene matched the same weapon, an unidentified nine-millimeter Smith & Wesson firearm.
Joseph's testimony reveals that she was walking to the store when she saw Defendant and Santiago arguing.Joseph testified that she witnessed Hill, i.e., "Speedy," hand a gun to Defendant, who then shot towards the store which was in the same direction as Santiago and his car.Joseph testified that she also saw Weston going to the store.According to the trial testimony of patrol officer Evan Lacross, he found Weston bleeding on the ground near the store.Officer Jordan Veillon testified that the hospital subsequently pronounced Weston had died.
Testimony also reveals that investigators obtained information from an inmate informant, Alshamir McKoy, that Defendant shot towards Santiago and Weston.McKoy later refused to testify at trial.Similar information was provided to investigators by a confidential informant.Based upon information received from confidential informant and McKoy, investigators interviewed a juvenile, Jaquincy Jack, also known...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...reversed on hearsay grounds, vacated his sentence, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial. State v. Wilson , 19-318 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/19), 286 So.3d 637. The State subsequently sought review by the supreme court, which remanded to this court for review in light of Ra......
-
James v. Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office
... ... The duty imposed by the law that applies to this situation, in essence, state law, and not a local administrative policy. That being the predominant, or overlying restrictor of conduct, it was a discretionary act by an officer ... ...