State Of Louisiana VS Jerry Moore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 KA 1979 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JERRY MOORE Judgment Rendered March 28 On Appeal from 2007 the 22nd Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of S1 Tammany Trial Court No 355706 1 Honorable Donald M Fendlason Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington LA and Kathryn Baton W Landry Rouge LA Mary E Roper Baton Rouge LA Ernest J Bauer Counsel for Defendant Jeny Appellant Moore J1 Mandeville LA BEFORE PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J J eny Moore The defendant indictment with 14 30 He pled one not of second count defendant pled of first count 1 guilty guilty He denied benefit of was sentenced parole probation designating three degree murder or assignments charge a violation of La R S amended was jmy trial he He moved for to life 14 30 1 error of We was found to one and the guilty as trial but the motion a new imprisonment suspension of a violation of La R S a Following charged by unanimous verdict was initially charged by grand jmy Thereafter the degree murder not was at sentence hard labor without He now appeals affirm the conviction and sentence ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 1 The evidence is the defendant there was no as a principal legally insufficient to second a support the conviction of degree murder of the victim where evidence that the defendant any crime other than to contemplated the commission of burglmy of an inhabited dwelling in his discussions with the man who killed the victim The defendant should have been 2 stages of the proceedings against him provided an interpreter at all specifically during interrogation arraignment and sentencing The trial court ened in 3 who on allegedly witnessed the victim I Jesse J first day of the offense s wife Montejo degree s car was also an at statements of two people argument between the defendant and the victim issue and two years allowing the a prior burglmy by the defendant of the before the offense charged by the same indictment with the murder 2 same offense He was found guilty of FACTS The victim Lewis Lou stores in St over ten years to routine included taking the money The victim the bank It to store was on Gause his wife and going son s a of the victim for dinner at and 9 00 a m on with the victim on On stores they were come same am statement September men not 5 2002 the defendant and the victim I driven 5 an their Captain Valet s m one 2002 between 8 15 s having a safety and front of the restaurant to the The argument ended car trial at approximately She in the victim exited the office afraid of you during were at and 6 15 p Vera at and the was s operations lady 9 15 or a m at 9 30 office loud talking victim stated to the Morrow had heard the victim make the argument with the defendant approximately month earlier After the victim left Vera van September m payday meeting He owned next to support him the trunk of his a m defendant a and then m between 6 00 p with him there to s both 2002 concerned for the victim was Vera Thereafter after 3 30 p Dillard testified at trial Dillard slamming On 5 Thursday September Birdie Sue MOlTOW also testified Valet kept restaurant a asked his cook Rich Garris to show the victim s well known fact that the victim Dillard heard the victim and the defendant a m really bad bad fight to from the Mandeville Pontchmirainlocated dry cleaning s The victim and to the grocery store restaurant at the stores Thursday routine included visiting his wife Hugh Captain Humble Humble the employed He stores deposits was a dry cleaning ten car murdered His businesses up operated Tangipahoa Parish repair equipment picking his money in the tIunk of his at his and Tammany Parish defendant for daily Ferrari owned and by Jesse Montejo 3 s Valet the defendant left in a one blue The victim 2002 the September of had to down spiraled the victim defendant s relationship between to to work kept his and 4 00 p m went to the victim which he been m On on 5 September She discovered his were kept still in their in the at body bags nightstand on car respond Due to the stores terminate his to routine and saw 2002 between 3 30 5 to meet her their home s Patricia Ferrari last 6 15 p approximately the kitchen was and August and their Groceries counter she m at son a purchased by The victim s gun One of two floor safes had missing opened chest The chest wound had been a right contact the ammunition reveal provided to the wound had died within six to ten odds of a and hours of under the nails of the victim s same He lividity was shot and killed was class characteristics The victim police by his family signs he had struggled right side of his eye and in the with ammunition similar in size and with the the the September 2002 at The victim had been shot in the not at had decided money in the hunk of his look for the victim after he failed restaurant in the victim and the defendant equipment on the company work that because the defendant would not the victim alive when he visited her p indicated She indicated the defendant knew the victim employment knew that he Patricia FelTari considerably calls failure s wife s Scrapings left hand matched the DNA of random match being approximately did he taken from Montejo with in one body indicating not fixed being examined s as ten billion Patricia Fenari indicated that in December 2000 the defendant had burglarized her vehicle but had been allowed to come the victim felt sony for the defendant s children victim by s son back the company 4 had work because Lewis Fenari also indicated the defendant knew the victim September 2002 to decided s to III the routine and that tenninate the e5 employment of the defendant due Ferrari III at approximately a one unreliability his to week before the victim to Lewis murder the defendant walked s I think I will just kill you the victim to Lewis F enari III the victim and conference between into the room and stated According Y or ou know I will just kill you Police been the seen investigation indicated the blue in the victim away from the victim p m 5 30 p or m recovered 20 from the victim his house Montejo at he returned he on was 30 p approximately 6 00 was connected police the cleaner on Thursday 1 30 p asking m p he told m m 5 15 that the victim had amount Montejo s spent by Montejo in to money September Lou off 2002 the defendant 7 on Tuesday after picking The defendant and then left Montejo Montejo of the murder No The Montejo and if The defendant claimed s approximately third of that one on to The No came over have lunch to When about the victim and the defendant claimed The defendant claimed he called corner at speed m driven van were search of the bedroom of Eric Gai repeatedly told Montejo was and the The defendant claimed he told approximately approximately 2 it of Approximately car interview with the an defendant claimed that at a rate car and 4 35 p m police believed the Additionally following high Montejo first mentioned rippin claimed he a s by Montejo had following the murder the hours up at and another third stepbrother In home 2 500 in his approximately was s driven between 4 15 p and that the victim the murder day of neighborhood s van claimed that defendant at that the Ferraris went out to dinner Montejo Montejo wanna go at 5 00 p Montejo stated over m he there then do and asked where was claimed he then asked if Grant in Mandeville had called and when Montejo answered around the who ran a negatively the defendant said he said he was next stated that at Montejo something Montejo defendant stated he from the victim COIner black house and the victim had man come Montejo revealed that the black from Montejo looked Algiers with nervous and Montejo told him him to the victim The defendant claimed more out a gun and also stated the other guy had shot the victim with the burglmy but did not out to eat Montejo tried probably to defendant refused to take the money with the murder he spent the Montejo allegedly stated morning repairing came over in the 700 out coming home and or exception He claimed Montejo going The 800 but the of 60 the day of which he needed money and asked about Montejo kept asking Montejo about 6 on the toilet in his bathroom morning close The defendant claimed he told but helped him The defendant also testified at trial burglaries thousand a be in the bedroom give him house had not garage would be open when the Fenaris would be s defendant claimed claimed least The defendant stated he told and that the money would Montejo owed at know the victim would be did not know anyone would be killed that the victim kept Montejo The defendant indicated he car He When asked if Montejo had but then added the defendant knew that the victim dollars in his s Montejo had shot him Montejo disclosed how much money he got the defendant claimed two thousand thought Montejo had shot the victim twice the defendant man pulled when The defendant claimed that when home stated he did not want to hear any then said that the victim had m was The defendant claimed he The defendant claimed went wrong a house s 7 30 p approximately had taken thought Montejo cOIner the around the was around the saw When asked where he bye to lunchtime burglarizing the He Montejo the victim s that he did not do residential burglm1zing the victim s house After Montejo left for lunch and returned the defendant refelTed Montejo Grant who ran a cleaner in Mandeville s defendant claimed he told that if he Montejo stating he was 4 00 p on Boudreaux to and stated Montejo indicated and 2 30 p seen him to to at was approximately 7 come over his brother 30 p to m The defendant claimed him and he had he had taken a m s a and bleed m and house in dark Montejo black to lun some came money Montejo stated The defendant also claimed man over to the victim s house The stop Montejo from telling him anymore but stated the victim had been shot The defendant claimed he returned the money to Montejo with the exception of 60 which Montejo owed him The defendant conceded he had four felony convictions The defendant claimed he met before the murder Montejo to Montejo about prison m back home until close went wrong defendant claimed he tried Montejo 1 30 p Montejo handed the defendant house s something that the victim had money he needed The defendant claimed he went to not return The defendant claimed that at back to the defendant if he see in Slidell was house and did s to make unable The defendant claimed that between 3 30 p Montejo Montejo but was The defendant claimed that Terry Boudreaux needed van he called m Gretna his of work The source Montejo Montejo left between visit his brother to him that neighbor told the brakes going potential give Montejo the money with Grant the defendant would The defendant claimed as a to after give while hitchhiking serving six because years for weeks before the murder three weeks The defendant claimed he paid The defendant claimed he talked him rides to work burglaries Montejo approximately Montejo burglaries Montejo asked 7 had just been released to from The defendant claimed that to meet him at the victim s house The defendant told and asked him if the Ferraris left the garage door open I think Montejo so The defendant denied victim on the day of the murder with He denied gun a ever having He also denied that gun He also denied ever The defendant denied any I ll kill your smile a Valet and s arguing with the threatening the victim III had misunderstood the defendant He claimed Lewis F enari had at Vera being a statement that the victim knowledge and denied weapon s seeing Montejo Montejo had ever spoken about violent any stuff The defendant claimed that victim wanted him Montejo to to the victim work to at of his stores the victim had in his briefcase the Fenaris Montejo that the sent The defendant claimed 20 and stated The defendant claimed that loaded told one 20 for gas get showed up later with the Tuesday before the murder and the defendant the on you know Man Montejo had seen Montejo this guy is how much money The defendant conceded that he may have got off at six and dinner went out to on Thursdays SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment the commission of not discuss using a of enor number I the defendant argues he a burglary of an inhabited dwelling with Montejo and did weapon to commit the The standard of review for conviction is whether prosecution burglmy or to hanll the victim sufficiency of the evidence to viewing the evidence in the light must be most beyond a reasonable doubt In expressly mindful of Louisiana 8 s s identity uphold favorable any rational trier of fact could conclude the State essential elements of the crime and the defendant of that clime only discussed as the to the proved the perpetrator conducting this review circumstantial evidence a we test also which states in order to convict III prove State excluded Wright v So 2d 485 486 2000 0895 La 11 17 00 When the every 773 reviewing comi must that evidence in the 2 La reasonably for rational a was 748 10 29 99 La quoting 19 2 most 730 So 2d 1157 La R S 15 438 on both direct and circumstantial evidence resolve any conflict in the direct evidence light 99 732 favorable to the evidence is thus viewed the facts established facts 1 Cir App innocence is 2d So conviction is based a p 99 0802 writs denied hypothesis of reasonable 98 0601 the evidence tends to proved that every fact to be assuming part by viewing When the direct prosecution the direct evidence and the by inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient conclude to juror beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Id guilty of every essential element of the crime 3 at p 730 So 2d at 487 The State s main murder because he second degree armed robbery 3 Second is trial was was a was killed is the degree murder in engaged or during to simple an robberi at the killing of a or a a after entering arms in felony himself with any theft therein if the offender a weapon or commits La R S 14 60 dangerous such place 2 s the attempted perpetration of or is amled with or victim being when human Aggravated burglary is the unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling where a guilty of aggravated burglary aggravated burglary armed robbery first degree robbery the intent to conmlit was the commission of the offense perpetration the that the defendant principal 4 degree robbery first home and the victim offender at theory a battery simple robbery person is present with dangerous weapon or upon any person while in such entering leaving 3Anned robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another by use offorce or intimidation while armed with a dangerous weapon place or La R S or l4 64 A taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person ofanother or by use of force or intimidation when the offender leads the to he is anned with a dangerous weapon La R S l4 64 1 A victim reasonably believe 5Simple robbery is the taking of anything ofvalue belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another by use of force or intimidation but not anned with a dangerous 4First degree robbery is the that is in the immediate control of another weapon La R S l4 65 A 9 even he has though 14 30 1 A 2 no intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm a All persons concel11ed in the commission of a crime whether absent and whether they directly commit the and abet in its commission to commit the crime are or directly principals However the defendant s the planning or commission cOlmected State execution of making thus only to a Smith v for the second 1 2 at pp they felt So 2d at was that 3 4 they owed 1140 to at in in its concerned A may be principal requisite mental state cert 152 L Ed 2d 231 2002 per curiam 748 So 2d 1139 Watts and Bernard Myles them for working s at the victim s s at p were Thereafter Watts and the other defendants had concealed in his waistband Id at p 3 on the fatally only Id common home bar Id home the defendants a which 2 748 surprised ani val of the victim and his wife at the front door to Watts shoot the victim The defendants reached 1139 40 would take money from the victim 748 So 2d at 1141 According knowingly participate 796 So 2d 649 659 La 6 29 01 Jeny Smith Genick While in the victim by the unexpected pp not degree murder of the victim Nazier Mickey Simmons 748 So 2d understanding is to principals 98 2078 La 10 29 99 involved the convictions of procure another enough those crimes for which he has the 12 13 or scene crime may be said to be denied 535 U S 940 122 S Ct 1323 State persons who as shot the victim Id at Id Watts knew of the gun he night in question and which he used 748 So 2d at 1141 10 or 14 24 presence at the mere present constituting the offense aid act indirectly counsel La R S them liable Neal 2000 0674 pp v or Only those him in the crime concen La R S to In whether exammmg applicable under the facts of the counsel labored under examined the comi in Smith conflict of interest the as defense case felony an murder doctrine to wit degree felony murder prosecution Myles and Smith could not defend themselves simply by casting full blame on Watts for the murder of Simmons Given In the context of a second their self confessed intent take Simmons to s cash all three responsible for the victim s murder if a jmy determined that they had made an unauthorized and therefore illegal ently onto the premises no matter how Smith and Myles sought to distance themselves from the fatal shots fired by Watts and without regard to whether they had even been aware the mens that their companion was armed In felony murder rea of the underlying felony provides the malice necessary to defendants became transform an Kalathakis unintended homicide into 563 citations omitted Scott Jr 231 So 2d 228 see also 2 v and R LaFave and Austin W Wayne S pp 211 7 5 of accessorial under State footnotes 1990 La Substantive Criminal Law Moreover murder a 12 1986 liability see general principles La R S parties to a crime are guilty for deviations from the common plan which are the foreseeable consequences 2 LaFave and Scott Substantive of carrying out the plan Criminal Law S 7 5 p 212 see also State v Anderson 97 707 So 2d 1223 1224 1301 p 3 La 2 6 98 Acting in concert each man then became responsible not only for his own 14 24 acts all but for the of the acts unauthorized entry of violence and death is an 364 co The risk that other inhabited dwelling an may escalate into foreseeable consequence of burglmy which evelY pmiy to the offense must accept no matter what he or she actually intended See State v Cotton 341 So 2d 362 was La 1976 of second guilty the victim likewise v if the a perpetrator in guilty of the as same a principal offense Lozier 375 So 2d 1333 not designed primarily are aggravated burglmy murder because he shot and killed degree then Cotton an 1337 to As La in the we 1979 burglmy was observed in State b urglmy laws protect the inhabitant from unlawful trespass and or the intended crime but to forestall the germination of a situation dangerous to the personal safety of In the archetypal burglmy an occupant of a the occupants intruder who may inflict serious hann on the occupant in his attempt to commit the crime or to escape from the house A homicide committed dming flight from an dwelling is startled by aggravated burglmy therefore constitutes So 2d 1155 1159 an or to felony facilitate murder La 1983 Smith 98 2078 at pp 7 8 748 So 2d at 1143 11 actual flight from the scene State v Anthony 427 A thorough evidence presented herein viewed in proved beyond hypothesis defendant s indicated robbery of the record in this matter indicates that the reVIew reasonable doubt and a identity principal as a defendant favorable most to degree murder and a planning of the The mens malice necessmy to transform murder See Smith 98 2078 assignment in life s the The evidence thus viewed that offense burglmy that took the victim homicide into to the State the exclusion of evelY reasonable knowingly participated underlying felony provided the This to light of innocence all of the elements of second the or the the of the rea unintended an 7 8 748 So 2d at 1143 at pp of elTor is without merit ABSENCE OF INTERPRETER AT INTERROGATION ARRAIGNMENT AND SENTENCING In to La an assignment interpreter R S erred in at 46 2361 of elTor number 2 the defendant argues he had the 46 2363 an his to suppress on the basis of and thus the trial statements comi and elTed in not interpreter at alTaignment and sentencing Louisiana Revised Statutes 46 2361 policy of this hearing impairments It is the communicate cannot sentencing 46 2364 and 15 270 denying his motion providing and interrogation alTaignment right in state to secure who cannot and administrative activities agencies and boards of the interpreters state transliterators in or rights of persons with readily understand or the and who benefit from spoken languages equally pmiicipate programs provides consequently proceedings legislative bodies licensing commissions depmiments of the courts and its subdivisions unless available are to qualified facilitate communication Louisiana Revised Statutes 46 2363 provides right of a hearing impaired person6 to the services of interpreter transliterator may not be waived except by hearing impaired person who requests a waiver The failure The 6 A hearing impaired understanding person means the communication a person who occurring because of La R S 46 2362 2 12 a hearing impairment an a of has difficulty the hearing impaired person to request the services of interpreter transliterator is not deemed a waiver of that right Louisiana Revised Statutes in an pertinent pmi provides hearing impaired person is a pmiy or witness at any stage involving direct communication with hearing impaired persons or his legal representative or custodian during any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding in this state or in its political subdivisions including but not limited to proceedings of civil and criminal comi grand jury before a magistrate juvenile adoption mental health commitment and any proceeding in which a hearing impaired person may be subjected to confinement or criminal sanction the appointing a and for shall pay qualified authority appoint interpreter transliterator to interpret or transliterate the proceedings to the hearing impaired person and to interpret or transliterate the hearing impaired person s testimony A Whenever a Louisiana Revised Statutes in peliinent pmi provides prosecutions where the accused is deaf or severely hearing impaired he shall have the proceedings of the trial interpreted to him in a language that he can understand by a qualified interpreter appointed by the comi In all cases where the mental condition of a person is being considered and where A In all climinal such person may be committed to a mental institution and where such person is deaf or severely hearing impaired all of the comi proceedings peliaining to him shall be interpreted by a qualified interpreter appointed by the comi The qualification of an interpreter as an expeli witness is governed by the Louisiana Code of Evidence 1 In any case where an interpreter is required to be appointed by the comi under this Section the comi shall not in commence proceedings until the appointed interpreter is B court 2 The interpreter appointed Section shall take an oath or in accordance with this affinnation that he will make a true interpretation to the deaf or severely hearing impaired person accused or being examined of all the proceedings of his case in a language that he understands and that he will repeat said deaf or severely hearing impaired person s answer to questions to counsel court or jury to the best of his skill and judgment 3 Interpreters appointed in accordance with this Section shall receive for their services an amount to be fixed by the judge presiding When travel of the interpreter is necessary all of the actual expenses of travel lodging and meals incurred by interpreter in connection with the case in which he appointed to serve shall be paid at the same rate applicable state employees the 13 is to The issue of whether the defendant questioning was addressed at the was heating provided interpreter dming an the defendant on s motion to suppress his statements St that on Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Sergeant 2002 at September 6 the defendant to take a statement defendant of his Miranda indicating a rights Sergeant Davis spoke loudly and to Sergeant Davis noticed an wore a the defendant had aid hearing the defendant answered the understand the the defendant if he needed in contact with came Sergeant Davis advised the from him problem with atiiculating celiain words and appeared he signed the pOliion of the rights waiver form he understood his of him and m rights the defendant indicated he understood those and the defendant rights 1 30 p approximately James Davis indicated questions Sergeant However questions asked Davis did interpreter and the defendant did not ask not ask for an interpreter St that on Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office Detective Ralph Sacks indicated September 7 2002 he statement from him St came in loss and thus rights questions in close that on proximity to the questions asked of him and appeared Detective Sacks did not take a a hearing defendant to The understand the ask the defendant if he needed interpreter and the defendant did not ask S1 to and the defendant indicated he rights Detective Sacks noticed the defendant had spoke loudly and defendant answered the with the defendant Tammany Patish Sheriffs Office Detective Johnny Morse read the defendant his Miranda understood those contact for an an interpreter Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Detective Wade Major indicated September 7 approximately 6 15 p statement from him S1 2002 at the defendant to take a 14 m he came in contact with Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Detective Johnny Morse read the defendant his Miranda lights defendant indicated he understood those defendant had as he a questioned appeared and thus healing loss spoke loudly the Major noticed and faced the defendant him The defendant answered the questions asked of him and understand the to Detective rights and the defendant if he needed an Detective questions did Major not ask the and the defendant did not ask for interpreter an interpreter Tammany Parish Sheliffs Office Detective Jerry Hall indicated St on September defendant At 6 2002 he agreed approximately the defendant at straight Detective Hall back defendant rights waiver portion of the rights was wealing a the defendant while an and fluidly and looked not question the The defendant answered the concelning the homicide of the victim to lights Detective Hall noticed the fmID they spoke Detective Hall did Hall did not offer the defendant an Tanunany Parish he understood those hearing aid and thus spoke questions asked of him and appeared for to St Detective Hall advised the defendant of his a m lights and the defendant indicated Miranda signed in contact with the defendant in Gretna and the came to accompany 3 03 that understand the interpreter and questions Detective the defendant did not ask interpreter The defendant also testified had suffered from people indicated he understand On victim speaker wore Montejo s not hear hearing aids someone cross the suppression healing healing problems his entire life lips and did s at He claimed he tlied to read people unless they spoke in both ears He claimed he to him but the aids did not directly He allow him to unless he could also read their lips examination the defendant conceded he had and others lips moving using a telephone He claimed however his 15 and was spoken not able to to the see the telephone amplified voices The defendant claimed that the offense he was only wearing the time he at At trial the defense and had a loss permitted did have residual him to use as a He bOlTowed mold they were explained from Dr David Muller Dr Muller indicated the defendant to severe medically remedial heming defendant lights presented testimony expert in the field of audiology legally deaf questioned concelTIing healing aid with one conceded however that he read his Miranda him was profound bilateral sensory neural Dr Muller conceded heming amplification i across many hearing aids e however aid him in his an was non that the speech frequencies to to that speech reading ability On defendant s Dr examination cross indicated Muller heming while the defendant was not that assisted he tested the by any heming aids Dr Muller also conceded that he told the defendant that he Dr Muller would be testifying in the defendant loss overemphasized his hearing The trial court has is a on hearing deficiency to duling trial and the defendant could have the testing to request to suppress to him rights given fOlTI1S and knew what that person at case denied the motion defendant understood the rights s an extent that he and had testified he had read the The court noted that if they contained the requires to their Initially s role in the even were heming impaired interpreter questions The court further noted it had observed the defendant interpreter an a person the burden interpreter especially in view of the fact that the officers testified the defendant s responses the The court found the questioning during appropliate were his testimony and of the defendant the defendant to be considered Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 270 does 16 or severely not COnCelTI deaf interrogation arraignment s fOlih set as concern the readily understand officers do understand at the time the made known his objections Crim P irregularity ruling or to the court to or error hearing impairments for an cannot interpreter at show that who cannot court or be availed of after verdict unless was made or the sought party to take or of and the grounds therefor La Code confession a must or inculpatory statement to be affinnatively show that it an or promises 15 451 La R S accused who makes a interrogation was first advised of his 99 1112 p 5 The was to La App 1 Cir 18 2 00 statement Miranda or its conclusions the voluntmy nature will not be oveliUllled unless showing of voluntminess defendant moved for and was on the are an v Plain a question for credibility and weight of the testimony not interpreter 17 are accorded great supported by the has been made is granted State during 752 So 2d 337 342 of the confession they the State confession lights freely menaces Additionally admissibility of a confession is in the first instance the trial cOUli relating cannot arraignment the action which he desired the cOUli action of the and The defendant s voluntarily given without influence of fear duress intimidation custodial 7The 43 2363 mi 841 threats inducements a RS testimony of the interviewing order of the court admissible into evidence the State must the spoken languages move It is well settled that for and La spoken languages person with a communicate in or to the 46 2361 and the statements The defendant failed An R S communicate in or indicate he is not La III rights of persons with hearing impairments who testimony his recorded sentencing to inapplicable argument Further readiZv IS 7 defendant 43 2364 sentencing and thus or at analyzed trial weight and evidence on a case by Whether case basis with to regard consider the the facts and circumstances of each the circumstances in totality of confession is admissible The trial testimony relating to conclusions the voluntmy credibility the on nature testimony of the interviewing officers assignment whether deciding and of the defendant suppOlied by the defendant s testimony his recorded This comi must or not a Plain 99 1112 at p 6 752 So 2d at 342 s comi The ttial case weight of statements s the are statements and the and thus will not be overturned of elTor is without merit TESTIMONY OF MORROW AND DILLARD EVIDENCE OF BURGLARY OF PATRICIA FERRARI S VEHICLE assignment of In occurred La the Code Evid evidence day of thorough admitted without murder s or the comi to take SIn regard stipulated to that on at on August 2002 car was 24 2004 irregularity ruling to objections challenges burglary P or or error was cannot be order of the court was 841 s pled guilty to 2000 18 the and La Code Evid art admissibility of the evidence of Patricia Fenari concerning comi the action of the mi to the the defendant had The bill of infornlation December 11 also known to the comi the action which he Code Crim the An the time the of his evidence of the defendant s December 11 occuned or La Accordingly l s mi 403 8 objection by the defense grounds therefor 1 03 A improperly admitted under review of the record indicates the evidence at issue sought the pmiy made desired the was prior burglary of Patricia Ferrari the availed of after verdict unless made Dillard The defendant also argues the admission of 403 art regarding the victim improperly admitted under La Code Evid A Captain Humble Hugh argument between the defendant and the victim that allegedly an on the defendant argues that the number 3 Sue Morrow and testimony of Birdie regarding error vehicle the State and the defense simple burglary of the vehicle on burglary however indicated the offense at issue were not preserved for appeal This assignment of enol merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 19 is without

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.