State Of Louisiana VS Edward Maurice Laurent
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 1047 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS EDWARD MAURICE LAURENT Judgment On Appeal from the Parish of St November 2 2007 rendered 220d Judicial Tammany State of Louisiana Number 408495 1 The Honorable William J District Court J Knight Judge Presiding w Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington LA Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Mary E Roper Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Counsel for Appellant Edward Maurice Laurent P ARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ DOWNING J The defendant information with cocaine possession of a Schedule violation of La R S a Following trial jury a offense of attempted and 40 979 motions for advised of his that he habitual offender sentence to defendant now the evidence denying to the person who months insufficient to new at hard the adjudication s multiple offender bill of previously pled guilty him a second labor was with one a was year of the The cunently serving conviction the trial to felony and sentencing delays of enor comi ened in and the trial comi ened in post verdict judgment of acquittal habitual offender multiple offender bill following three assignments support trial a adjudicated consecutive to any sentence he was responsive violation of La R S 40 967 C The defendant waived all his motions for motions for same appeals designating of the guilty guilty not judgment of acquittal Upon being and the trial comi eighteen 18 run the was pled the trial court denied the defendant rights the defendant stipulated of cocaine to hearing found a dangerous substance The defendant The State filed 14 27 trial and post verdict information i e possession was possession of cocaine At the new 1 of charged by bill was II controlled 40 967 C the defendant See also La R S of information sentenced Edward Maurice Laurent his denying We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On Febluary prostitution from the making several I two Lieutenant other was manager of anests at men Byron Knockum also defendant 2006 Kevin Swann with the Slidell Department received complaints about narcotics activity Police and 10 a Motel 6 Taos Street in Slidell the Motel 6 Lieutenant Swann standing together near a car appears on the bill of information tried alone in this on matter 2 in the charged saw rear with the After the defendant parking same and crime lot of the However the motel He recognized When Lieutenant Swann they became found a a crack metal tube During pipe his a the a men known and in Slidell drug dealer began speaking with them Lieutenant Swann safety down the patted pat down of the defendant Lieutenant Swann in the defendant containing men as approached For his nervous for weapons men of the one metal s left screen The crack pocket and residue was Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory for Laboratory Scientific Analysis Report indicated that pipe which was submitted to the St The Crime analysis the crack pipe was determined to contain cocaine ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS 1 2 AND 3 In these three assignments insufficient to was contends that support his conviction there is intentionally possessed he was of error the defendant argues the evidence no evidence cocaine or due process See U S or not to do since the crack so pipe visible cocaine residue XIV La Const sufficiency of the evidence viewing knowingly and insufficient evidence cannot stand Const amend standard of review for the is whether on no the defendant Specifically show that he to attempted found in possession of contained A conviction based 2 the evidence in the light to as I art uphold it violates 2 S a The conviction most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond 319 art P 654 2 99 S Ct 2781 State v reasonable doubt Jackson 2789 61 L Ed 2d 560 State 821 B 660 a v Ordodi MussaH The defendant combines these three evidence for new Sufficiency trial evidence Therefore not is properly raised Under La Code Crim the p 10 523 So 2d 1305 Williams if the defendant meant to also argue that the s See also La Code Crim La 1129 06 1308 09 458 2d So weight of La 946 1988 13 15 denial ofthe defendant s motion for 3 1324 La App the evidence warranted review is limited to whether the trial court abused its wide discretion instant matter ofthe trial COUlt 443 U S 307 2d So The assignments of error to address the sole issue of sufficiency of by a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal not by a motion P art 85 I 1 the trial cowt can consider only the weight of the See State v sufficiency 06 0207 1979 Virginia v We find new trial no 1 Cir 1984 a new trial our abuse ofdiscretion in the Jackson v Virginia standard of review incorporated in Article 821 objective standard for testing the overall evidence circumstantial evidence for reasonable La R S 438 15 doubt When 141 Patorno v 01 2585 4 5 pp analyzing circumstantial La hypothesis provides in See 822 So 2d pertinent part Schedule II unless such substance pursuant to To a support valid a prescription in possession it possessed possession circumstances of possession of cocaine Sylvia 01 1406 p 3 The trier of fact is free to testimony of any witness given evidence 97 2261 pp 5 6 is not La App directly a practitioner or an and intent knowledge but may intentionally conviction of a a authorized 845 So 2d 358 or reject are to appellate 1 Cir 9 25 98 4 states of be infened from the a charged lesser included offense responsive La Code Crim P accept or art verdict 814A 50 1 to a State 361 in whole or in pmi the The trier of fact s determination of the subject must essential element of the crime of conviction of a La 4 9 03 classified in knowingly Evidence which would support Attempted possession of cocaine is charge an he facts as necessarily support intentionally reasonable doubt that the defendant The elements of mind and need not be proven offense would is Guilty knowledge of cocaine a and that drug as possession of cocaine the State conviction for of the or obtained was order from or present evidence establishing beyond be of innocence 1 Cir 6 21 02 App It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess a controlled dangerous substance v and 144 La R S 40 967 C was direct an that the factfinder must be satisfied the provides overall evidence excludes every reasonable State both is review See State 721 So 2d 929 932 v weight to Taylor The defendant contends that the State failed to prove he intentionally possessed he was him seeking to obtained the crack the State the defendant whether he had pipe it contained cocaine residue aware was Instead the visual evidence of prior the visible ever Also cocaine residue only were no facts the metal on or establish that to cocaine at the time Lieutenant Swann purchase to According cocaine because there knowingly stopped did not establish when he used it according or to whether he was the defendant no pipe found in his possession use was burnt marks on the ends of pipe The only witness According to Lieutenant discovered a crack pipe Swann that you could tell in the Analysis Report residue found on Because crack was the defendant of their there is left Also a no down the s with pipe other reasonable State Sylvia v 00 2836 pp 3 4 La Spates 588 So 2d 398 125 02 402 residue Scientific cocaine narcotics no use explanation consumption other than App as but that he had 807 So 2d 218 La was Laboratory knowledge that the crack pipe contained cocaine residue Lipscomb he From the nature of the instrumentalities crack There positive for singular association with a defendant which established that the crack pipe tested use Swann Lieutenant Swann pocket Crime submitted into evidence possession of paraphernalia s Lieutenant was ingesting crack cocaine pipe pipes constitute single defendant s trial patting upon in the defendant It had been used for testified at the testify to 2 Cir drug guilty See State 220 per 1991 v curiam See also 01 1406 at p 5 845 So 2d at 362 It is obvious from the testimony of Lieutenant finding Swann including the defendant testified was to of credible offer 5 guilt that the And jury concluded no the other witness conflicting testimony Conviction for possession of cocaine residue of cocaine Cir 9 27 96 After light beyond thorough a the possession of McMooain 95 2103 pp v to of cocaine mere 5 6 traces La or 1 App 1373 74 we conclude that the evidence verdict Weare convinced that of innocence These on review of the record the State reasonable doubt hypothesis possession s favorable most a See State 680 So 2d 1370 supports the jury the may rest and viewing the evidence in a rational trier of fact could have found to the exclusion of every reasonable that the defendant was guilty of attempted 3 assigmnents of error are without merit DECREE F or the foregoing adjudication and reasons we affirm the conviction habitual offender sentence CONVICTION HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED We note that the evidence is sufticient to cocaine It follows attempted possession thus suppoli that the evidence a conviction for the charged jury is sufficient to suppOli the of cocaine 6 offense of of s of possession responsive verdict
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.
