State v. Wilson

Decision Date18 May 2016
Docket Number50,589–KA.
Citation196 So.3d 614
Parties STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Tommy Lee WILSON, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Louisiana Appellate Project, by George D. Ross, for Appellant.

James E. Stewart, Sr., District Attorney, Sarah Midboe Hood, Geya Prudhomme, Treneisha Hill, Joshua Williams, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.

Before BROWN, CARAWAY, and GARRETT, JJ.

GARRETT, J.

The defendant, Tommy Lee Wilson, was found guilty as charged of three counts of first degree murder by unanimous votes of the jury. Although the defendant had been indicted for first degree murder, the state did not seek the death penalty. The trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for each count and directed that the sentences be served consecutively. The defendant appeals, urging four assignments of error. We affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences.

FACTS

The victims in this case were Irene Ellison, age 78; her 41–year–old daughter, Carisa Ellison; and Carisa's boyfriend, Brian Wilson, age 58.1 The women lived in a three-bedroom house in the 4000 block of Gloria Drive in Shreveport with Kenneth Ellison, Irene's son and Carisa's brother. At the time of the murders, Brian was living in a shed located behind the house.

On the night of July 18, 2013, a 911 operator received a phone call from a hysterical Kenneth at about 9:30 p.m.2 He reported that he had just found his mother tied to a chair in her bedroom and that she had been shot. His call was transferred to the police department. While talking to an officer and walking through the darkened living room to turn on the porch lights for the emergency personnel responding to his call, Kenneth tripped over Brian's feet.3 Brian's body was lying partially on the couch. Kenneth told the officer that Brian had been dating his sister. Like Irene, Brian also had a bloody wound to the chest. Kenneth then found his sister lying face down on her bed in a pool of blood.

All three victims had been stabbed to death. The forensic pathologists who performed their autopsies opined that the victims' wounds were consistent with a single-edged blade, like a kitchen or steak knife. Brian had a single stab wound to the upper left chest. He also had an abrasion to his left cheek and two sharp force, incised wounds to fingers on his right hand, possible signs of a struggle with his killer. Irene, whose hands were bound behind her with an electrical extension cord, had also been stabbed in the upper left chest. After the initial penetration into her heart, the knife had been withdrawn slightly and turned; thus, there were actually two wounds to the heart wall. Additionally, Irene had a superficial, incised wound to her scalp above the right ear.

Carisa had been stabbed 13 times. Most of her wounds were to her neck, upper chest and upper back. The forensic pathologist who examined Carisa's body noted that he had seen similar injuries before, usually in domestic violence cases involving feelings of love and hate toward the victim. He especially noted that a great deal of force was used to make the deep stab wounds to Carisa's chest, which caused her lung to collapse and prevented her from breathing. A broken tooth and disarrayed clothing indicated that a fierce struggle occurred between Carisa and her killer. Her shirt was ripped, and her pants were unfastened and unzipped and partially off her waist. A blanket had been draped over her; there were no sheets on the bed.

Upon entering the residence, police officers immediately noticed a strong bleach smell. They also observed apparent bleach stains on the carpet. One of the officers securing the outside perimeter of the crime scene discovered a bottle of bleach in an outside trash can. Bubbles in the bottle indicated that it had been recently shaken or dropped. Testimony adduced at trial showed that bleach degrades DNA evidence.

The crime scene was meticulously processed by crime scene investigators, who photographed, collected, and catalogued all evidence deemed relevant to the murders. There was no sign of forced entry into the Ellison residence, which was described as well maintained and nicely decorated. In fact, one crime scene investigator described the house as one of the most immaculate crime scenes he had ever seen. Due to the very clean and orderly condition of the home, it was quickly observed that one of the knives in a butcher block in the kitchen had not been properly placed in the block. Examination of this knife revealed that there was a difference in how it had been washed as compared to the other knives in the block.

Some blood drops were found in the bathroom. A plastic produce bag stained with fresh blood was discovered in the kitchen trash can. The blood was determined to be Carisa's. A partial palm print found in the blood was subsequently matched to the defendant.

The police verified Kenneth's alibi, thus eliminating him as a suspect. Due to the particular brutality of Carisa's murder, the police concluded that she was the killer's main target, and they began focusing on who would want to harm her. A neighbor who was interviewed by the police stated that, while Carisa had several male friends who visited her, the defendant stood out the most. The neighbor recounted that he had often seen the defendant hiding in the cemetery across the street and in the bushes outside the Ellison residence, watching the house. Likewise, Kenneth had unexpectedly encountered the defendant outside the house only two weeks before the murders.

The defendant was interviewed by the police on July 22, 2013, at which time he gave a recorded statement wherein he claimed that he had been at the hospital with his ill brother at the time of the murders. However, his brother told the police that the defendant was gone from the hospital between 5 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. After the bloody palm print on the plastic bag was matched to the defendant, the police obtained arrest warrants for him.

The defendant was arrested on July 26, 2013, on three counts of second degree murder. Photos taken of his right wrist and forearms showed semicircle injuries, similar to fingernail marks. Forensic analysis matched DNA found under Brian's fingernails to the defendant. During a recorded statement given after he was advised of his Miranda rights, the defendant made numerous remarks which contradicted those in his first recorded statement. Notably, in the first interview, he initially said he had not been in the Ellison house in two months, but then changed the time period to one month. He indicated that, at that time, he had sex with Carisa at the house. During the second interview, he stated that he had been there in the last two weeks, then changed it to perhaps the week before, and he asserted that he had had sex with Carisa in her bed.

On the day of the defendant's arrest, the police were contacted by Gwendolyn Davis, who worked for the Shreveport Housing Authority. She managed the apartment complex where the defendant's brother resided. She was also a friend of Carisa. She recounted a conversation she had with the defendant just four days after the murders, in which he told her several details pertaining to the crime scene. None of these details had been released by the police to the public at the time of their conversation. Among these were the location and condition of the bodies, including the facts that Irene was tied up and that all the victims were stabbed in the chest. The defendant also claimed that he and Carisa were “special, special friends,” and he became upset when Ms. Davis referred to Brian as Carisa's boyfriend. He further told Ms. Davis that Irene had banned him from her house because she thought he had cut a cord supplying electricity from the house to the shed; he denied cutting the cord.4 The defendant asserted to her that Kenneth was the killer.

The defendant was subsequently indicted on three counts of first degree murder. Trial was held in July 2015. The defendant testified in his own defense, denying that he harmed or killed the victims. The jury unanimously convicted him as charged on all counts. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence on each count, ordering that they be served consecutively. The defendant appealed.

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

In two of his assignments of error, the defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his three convictions for first degree murder and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

Law

When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence. The reason for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence first is because the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981), if a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in accord with Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not reasonably conclude that all of the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992) ; State v. Cortez, 48,319 (La.App.2d Cir.8/7/13), 122 So.3d 588.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim 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, supra; State v. Tate, 2001–1658 (La.5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004) ; State v. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.2d Cir.1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 2008–0499 (La.11/14/08), 996...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Haley, 51,256–KA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 24, 2017
    ...We disagree. The district attorney is afforded considerable latitude in making argument to the jury. State v. Wilson , 50,589 (La.App. 2 Cir. 05/18/16), 196 So.3d 614, 624. Further, a trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments. Id ., citing State v. Casey......
  • State v. Lewis, 51,672–KA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • November 15, 2017
    ...Roberson , supra . Trial error is harmless where the verdict rendered is "surely unattributable to the error." State v. Wilson , 50,589 (La. App. 2 Cir. 05/18/16), 196 So.3d 614, writ denied , 16-1102 (La. 05/12/17), 221 So.3d 72. A defendant cannot complain that prejudicial conduct require......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 17, 2017
    ...the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Wilson , 50,589 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/18/16), 196 So.3d 614 ; State v. Authier , 46,903 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/25/12), 92 So.3d 494, writ denied , 2012-1138 (La. 11/2/12), 99 So.3......
  • State v. Hilliard
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • August 14, 2019
    ...99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied , 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000) ; State v. Wilson , 50,589 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/18/16), 196 So. 3d 614, writ denied , 16-1102 (La. 5/12/17), 221 So. 3d 72. Even in the case of a prosecutor exceeding the bounds of pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT