STATE OF LOUISIANA VS ROBERT PETERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 KA 0418 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT PETERSON j On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 06 01 0405 Section VII Honorable Todd W Doug Jeanne Judge Presiding Attorneys Moreau District Hernandez Attorney Rougeau Assistant District for State of Louisiana Attorney Baton Rouge LA for Kevin P Monahan Attorney Baton Defendant Rouge LA Appellant Robert Peterson BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ Judgment rendered December 28 2006 PARRO J Robert Peterson The defendant degree murder trial a violation of LSA the defendant 14 31 violation of LSA R S labor found was The defendant charged by bill of indictment with second was s R 14 30 1 He not guilty Following a jury guilty of the responsive offense of manslaughter He was sentenced to a thirty years of imprisonment at hard two appeals designating now pled assignments of We affirm error the conviction and sentence FACTS The testimony of several witnesses During the early morning of February 17 Williams and Marc cousin s at trial 2001 Fatima Celestine apartment from multiple stab wounds l Brandon found Brandon found were Butler s police throughout Butler s table top the bathroom door frame the bedroom door and Several prints were lifted and submitted to the State Police Crime Lab analysis Through his investigation Lockett of the Baton asked him to station he was his Miranda defendant come as lead investigator of the Subsequently the police to the police station Detective rights asked At no time was After he the defendant by the police about his informed them that he did not know Butler In another part of the record she is referred to 2 complied and was printed he placed under contact with When the Fatema as as a went to the defendant The defendant fingerprinted and palm printed was case Rouge Police Department developed the defendant the murder of Butler 1 called the in his Marc on a apartment including for s son following facts Cheney his friend Gary Butler dead Butler Bloody fingerprints and bloody palm prints the kitchen floor established the s arrest Butler suspect in house and at the was Lonnie police advised of When the the defendant police informed the defendant Selestine that they had knowledge that he was seen 2 the defendant altered his According to the testimony of Detective Lockett the defendant told him that he story drove Butler to Butler s mother house to s The defendant did not go into the had to go home s The Upon returning to Butler s apartment with Butler because it was The defendant told the apartment analysis get her television in his vehicle while Butler went into his apartment the defendant remained Butler with Butler police that he had too late and he been inside of never police asked the defendant if he would take test The defendant declined and the apartment voice stress a police brought him back home Shannon McDaniel testified at trial that she knew the defendant and that she had met Butler once the defendant February 16 Justin her defendant a According walking to her roommate On McDaniel Butler m February 14 2001 she came to February 19 s apartment a her few together apartment to saw Two Butler and days later days after Butler was killed crack head and that she should not have answered her door and talked to him that he and Butler had gotten into and stabbed the defendant in the in the defendant Janice s Reeves testified at trial She stated that apartment car She 3 leg be bothering her again a was latent was The He told her a Butler then took the defendant money and left fingerprint analyst accepted the argument and that Butler pulled s The defendant did not tell McDaniel that Butler bloody palm prints were a an never on briefly speak with The defendant told McDaniel that Butler defendant then told her that Butler would 2 on out of a Winn Dixie grocery store at about 10 30 p came to testimony as an with the State knife was on him dead Police Crime Lab expelt in fingerprint and palm print analysis found on a table and the refrigerator in Butler s match for the defendant the investigation Williams told the police that he had seen Butler getting into the defendant s Gerald Lane testified at trial that on February 17 2001 at about 12 30 a m after talking to Butler whom he knew he saw Butler get into the defendant s car a green Mitsubishi Diamante Lane testified that Butler was alone and that he entered on the driver s side of the defendant s car and drove off During car 3 At trial room the parties stipulated injuries in March 2001 for that the defendant consistent with a was treated at the Earl K knife wound to the 3 right leg Long Hospital emergency Alejandro Vara at trial He was accepted palm print evidence door frames table of the defendant forensic DNA a expert in the lifting and collecting of fingerprint and as an well as as was a Dr Alfredo Suarez a stated that Butler received a DNA taken from serology top and other s car analyst with the State Police Crime Lab testified areas of Butler s trial and the direct the as pathologist performed the autopsy total of of death cause apartment well as on the the floorboard match for Butler the was parties stipulated that a on Butler 4 Dr Suarez thirty knife wounds and that he may have lived for ten to fifteen minutes before he bled to death was bloodstains found Dr Suarez felt that the stab wound that deep wound to Butler urine s left axilla or armpit At specimen taken from Butler contained cocaine marijuana Detective Lockett testified that he did not find any support or corroborate the stated there that Butler was no was the inside the tub that would corroborate responded position that the defendant killed Butler doubt that there one an attack was a in self defense He struggle and that the evidence supported When asked if he found any by Butler upon the defendant physical evidence Detective Lockett No sir The defendant did not testify ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO In physical evidence that would his first assignment of insufficient to support did not prove beyond a a conviction the defendant 1 evidence was SpeCifically the defendant contends that the state error argues the reasonable doubt that he did not kill Butler in self defense 4 The autopsy report which was admitted into evidence stated that the cause of death exsanguination due to multiple cuts and stab wounds to the body and the manner of death homicide The list of injuries under Final Diagnosis was as follows 1 Multiple stab wounds slashes and cuts to the head neck thorax upper extremities and left lumbar fossa with including a Severed left axillary blood vessels and left internal jugular vein b Lacerated skeletal muscle of the left arm axilla right neck and occiput c Fractured left 4th and 5th ribs d Left sided hemothorax e Multiple defense wounds to the upper extremities 4 was was A conviction based See U S process on insufficient evidence cannot stand Const amend LSA Const art I XIV challenging the sufficiency of the evidence this viewing the evidence in the light In most favorable to the See also LSA C Cr P art 1988 v The Jackson 821 B State Mussall v whether after prosecution any rational trier of beyond a Virginia 443 U S 307 319 99 S Ct 2781 2789 61 v violates due reviewing claims court must consider fact could have found the essential elements of the crime Jackson 2 9 it as reasonable doubt L Ed 2d 560 523 SO 2d 1305 Virginia standard of review incorporated 1979 1308 09 in Article 821 La is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence LSA 5 R 15 438 for provides that in order to convict the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable Cir 6 21 02 hypothesis of innocence 822 So 2d 141 While the defendant guilty of manslaughter degree murder passion or 1 was second or heat of blood LSA CCr P manslaughter as a degree murder a cooled was or that of art 814 A to kill or 1st Cir La 3 was Louisiana 1st found a Revised homicide which would be either first but the offense is committed in sudden immediately caused by provocation sufficient an average person to deprive an Provocation shall not reduce The existence the offense but App 1st Cir 1988 inflict great writ denied bodily harm blood would have cooled s of sudden rather circumstances that may reduce the 579 582 App a manslaughter if the fact finder finds that the offender s blood had actually committed elements La responsive verdict for proper average person of his self control and cool reflection homicide to 01 2585 charged with second degree murder he Guilty of manslaughter is defines Patorno v 144 charge of second degree murder Statute 14 31 A State are passion factors grade of homicide and in at the time the offense heat of blood the State nature v are not of mitigating Maddox 522 So 2d Manslaughter requires the presence of specific intent See State 515 SO 2d 444 La v 1987 5 Hilburn 512 SO 2d 497 504 La App intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate Specific that the offender or actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences failure to act State LSA Cousan v is specific intent 14 10 1 5 R 94 2503 an ultimate La 11 25 96 1 When be formed in can 684 So 2d 382 legal conclusion Louisiana Revised Statute 14 A homicide is Such state of mind to be resolved to follow his act 390 by the an instant The existence of trier of fact 205 provides in pertinent part justifiable committed in self defense by who reasonably danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger one believes that he is in imminent Louisiana Revised Statute 14 21 provides A person who is the aggressor who brings on a difficulty cannot 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 or claim the that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict The defendant established reasonable a the knife and was the defendant bathroom contends trying that the testimony of Dr theory of self defense The defendant to rob the defendant for got the knife away from was and Mr Vara posits that Butler had drug money Butler got cornered in the bathtub and Suarez Following The defendant then forced to stab Butler who a struggle ran to the kept coming toward the defendant 6 On cross Suarez took on examination the as the as characterized by arms defense wound Dr Suarez correct Yes Q If Mr Butler began with the knife and Mr Peterson had Louisiana Revised Statute 14 20 was amended amendment is not 6 a In terms of first of all the defense wounds you characterized them defense wounds because they re on the hands and the lower part of A 5 between defense counsel and Dr place regarding photographs introduced into evidence of Butler s hand Q following exchange The defendant s applicable theory in this by 2006 La Acts No 141 9 1 to take it however that case of self defense is described in detail in defense counsel 6 s opening statement from him couldn t he have cut his hands in the fold they as were that knife struggling over A It s possible Q Okay A Well Well you say it not the s possible likely scenario In this case the several other defense wounds not that Q Im to going Im get going to to those get But what I m going to start with is Q And there A Yes was a struggle going on in this apartment correct Q Okay And you don t know if the struggle is Mr Peterson attacking Gary Butler or Mr Peterson is taking the knife from Mr Butler and is defending himself because Mr Butler is coming at him You don t know that do you A I don t know Q And them as I going back just just bring the evidence to you that I found to defensive wounds defensive doesn t could be the situation I as mean that just because you characterize It somebody s acting defensive going for the knife as we characterized correct A That particular one that you mention the one between the thumb and the index could be in your scenario that could be possible Now their sic other ones though Q I understand On redirect examination Dr Suarez took the following exchange between the prosecutor and place Dr Suarez Mr Monahan talked about the smears in the tub I m Q showing you S 7 And he hypothesized that that could have been Robert Peterson putting the smears on the tub Is it possible that Gary Butler was in the tub bleeding and he was bleeding and fending off Robert Peterson and fell down and slipped with his elbow against the wall and his hip against the wall Because the skid marks must be created by somebody whose sic bleeding A I believe that the person who smears in there was bleeding the most was the one who caused these Later in the trial on cross counsel and Mr Vara took examination the following exchange between defense place regarding photographs introduced 7 into evidence of blood smears found in the bathroom at the crime Right And Q D 2 which the two now pieces that Ive just showed you meaning sic would be the both if I scene horizontal smear and the vertical to you that that was Mr Peterson with one leg up against and a knife in his hand trying to hypothesized his hip defend himself from somebody coming in at him with their hand right here holding sic themself that evidence right there could not dispute that hypothesis could it Those two photographs Ill go through it again smears in the tub with A One Q I know A Yes Q And then the vertical more time It please big long question s a recognize D 2 you ve already agreed with me that it is consistent with somebody who would have blood on their hip and would be smearing it against that wall correct I There is that with what could be A Okay you said that those smears are consistent elbow correct Correct Q an pattern smear And I Peterson with m one hypothesizing to you now just on D 2 If that is Mr foot in the tub defending himself with his hip up with Mr Butler in the tub that picture would the wall against struggling not dispute that hypothesis that Im putting to you of Mr Peterson s back the wall with his hip causing the horizontal rub and the sic his against elbow causing the vertical rubs correct A Correct That wouldn t dispute the hypothesis Q Okay If I add one more hypothesis that if it s coming into the tub after him and has his hand on the stabilizing himself couldn t tell as he that that me to s Mr Butler whose corner right here the knife from Mr Peterson trying get you photograph right there disputes that hypothesis could you A No I couldn t Q Thank you On redirect examination the Vara took place Q What A I couldn t the following exchange between the prosecutor and hypothesis could you right hand dispute if if it s not dispute that I missed just strictly going to be the left hand one it is given the picture or I couldn t tell you which Would you if sic dispute the fact that if Gary Butler was in the tub Q and he was fighting for his life and he slipped when someone came at him with the knife that those exact same markings could be made 8 Mr No I couldn t A Q Im A dispute that Yes going to show you what s been previously marked as S 8 and S 9 pictures of the blood in the tub Would you agree that it would be reasonable to believe that the person leaving those bloodstains in that tub is bleeding profusely And the person in that tub given the facts of this case do you know of any person other than Gary Butler that could have been Q A No Q Mr Vara and therefore you understand that you re qualified as an expert here get to provide scenarios to you And you get to talk we about that A Yes Q Now if Gary Butler is using this as our handy dandy tub here if the tub and he is bleeding with the wounds in this case could he have in left those marks in that tub A Yes he could of And he is weak and then slips and falls Q Could he have left the marks with his elbow or grasp trying to keep himself up with his smudge fingertips A Yes he could of And you can t say whether this is Gary Butler fighting for his life Q to stand up or whether this is Robert Peterson in there can trying you A That s correct Specific intent need not be proven as a fact but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant that a determination be made as to whether the circumstances jury s finding that the defendant had the specific intent harm 225 State La v Spears 504 So 2d 974 977 La App 1st Cir it is necessary presented support the or to inflict great bodily writ denied 507 So 2d 1987 In the instant matter the victim inflicted to kill Thus a total of s death thirty stabbings slashes and 9 was proved The fact that the defendant cuts indicates that the defendant clearly had the the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon the victim in a review of the only remaining issue Therefore sufficiency of the evidence is whether or not the defendant acted in self defense When self defense is raised burden of proving in self defense beyond Thus the evidence in the a issue as an reasonable doubt that the homicide the issue in this case the state has the not was of viewing prosecution could have found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill the victim in self defense verdict perpetrated is whether a rational fact finder most favorable to the light by the defendant The a guilty manslaughter indicates that the jury accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses insofar kill Butler in self defense as such testimony established that the defendant did No defense witnesses testified at trial See not Spears 504 SO 2d at 977 78 In finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter it is clear the jury rejected the claim of self defense and concluded that the scenarios of self defense the defendant on the not reasonable were Butler it is clear the cross incident could examinations of Dr Suarez and Mr Vara Given the number of cut slash unjustifiable Based on danger envisioned by LSA R S had abandoned the role of defender and taken such was not entitled to claim self defense Bates 95 1513 Moreover defendant 7 Dr La App 1st Cir at no time 11 8 96 was cause a one wound that not 14 20 1 possible by on s own account a rational trier of fact necessary of the to save the and or that the defendant the role of an aggressor and See LSA 5 R 683 So 2d 1370 14 21 see also State as v 1377 during the police investigation of the matter did the suggest that he killed Butler in self defense Suarez testified that force to the defendant reasonably concluded that the killing defendant from the while and stab wounds suffered reflecting that he stabbed Butler after disarming him have suggested by jury concluded that the force used by the defendant against Butler unreasonable and was as of the stab wounds penetrated deep 10 Instead after killing Butler the Butler five inches and that it took a lot of defendant left the and did not contact the scene began questioning him about what happened Butler then after inside Butler s A Further police when the the defendant denied police first ever admitting he knew Butler the defendant insisted he had knowing never been apartment finding of purposeful misrepresentation reasonably raises the inference of guilty mind as in the case of flight following offense an misrepresentation of facts by the defendant following indicative of recognized as So 2d 676 680 nA La an awareness 1984 of or the case offense an State wrongdoing a of material Lying has been Captville v 448 The facts in the instant matter established acts of both flight and material misrepresentation by the defendant The trier of fact is free to any witness State 932 We what weight with the or Taylor 97 2261 reject in whole La to give evidence in criminal 772 So 2d 78 83 as a thirteenth See State v testimony of 721 SO 2d 929 in juror Mitchell assessing 99 3342 La The fact that the record contains evidence which conflicts testimony accepted by the trier of fact insufficient cases in part the or 1st Cir 9 25 98 App constitutionally precluded from acting are 10 17 00 v accept a trier of fact does not render the evidence State Quinn 479 SO 2d 592 596 v La accepted by App 1st Cir 1985 An appellate determination of evidence is a court will not reweigh the evidence guilt Taylor 721 So 2d question of fact questions of fact in criminal cases This at 932 to overturn a A determination of the court has no LSA Const art V fact finder s weight of the appellate jurisdiction to review 9 10 B See Spears 504 SO 2d at 978 After a thorough review of the record we find that the evidence jury s verdict We are convinced that to the state rational trier of fact could have found a the exclusion of every reasonable viewing the evidence in the light beyond a supports the most favorable reasonable doubt and to hypothesis of innocence that the defendant did 11 not kill his victim in self defense and This assignment of error such as was 8 guilty of manslaughter is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second assignment of error the defendant argues that his sentence was excessive A written review of the record indicates that defense counsel did not make thorough 881 2 A Under LSA CCr P oral motion to reconsider sentence or the failure to make 1 the defendant from an error 667 So 2d 1141 reviewed 1143 App 1st Cir 9 28 01 en file objection The defendant excessiveness assignment of raising or a v to the sentence on Duncan 369 appeal including a and preclude claim of procedurally barred from having this is banc per curiam 809 So 2d 360 881 1 E motion to reconsider sentence shall therefore State arts a 94 1563 See also State writ denied App 1st Cir 12 15 95 La v Felder 00 2887 01 3027 La 10 25 02 La 827 SO 2d 1173 This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 8 Moreover a rational trier of fact rational fact finder charged viewing all of the evidence could have concluded that the state as favorable to the proved beyond a prosecution as any reasonable doubt that the degree murder was proved and that the defendant did not kill the responsive verdict of manslaughter was proper See State v offense of second self defense So 2d 511 1982 can La Therefore App cert denied 1st Cir 1992 461 U S 959 See also State ex rei Elaire 103 S Ct 2432 77 LEd 2d 1318 12 v Blackburn 1983 the victim in Jones 598 424 So 2d 246 La
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
