State Of Louisiana VS Michael J. Reynolds
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 1284 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAELJ REYNOLDS Judgment rendered December 21 2007 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court No 386106 Honorable N WALTER P REED Larry J Green Judge ATTORNEYS FOR DISTRICf ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COVINGTON LA MOLLY L BALFOUR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BATON ROUGE LA HOLL HERRLE CASTILLO ATTORNEY FOR MARRERO DEFENDANT APPELLANT LA MICHAELJ BEFORE REYNOLDS CARTER C l PETTIGREW AND WELCH ll PEITIGREW The defendant Michael J count of third offense 14 98 0 was and pled sentenced to operating not gUilty Reynolds a was charged by bill of information with OWl vehicle while intoxicated Following a jury trial he was a found guilty violation of La as 5 R He charged 2 000 00 fine three years at hard labor with all but the first a one thirty days of the sentence suspended and with the first thirty days without benefit of parole probation 14 98 0 follow He we suspension of or sentence and otherwise in compliance with La appeals designating three assignments of now 5 R For the that error reasons affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On were May 14 2004 traveling women on noticed defendant the a which at Kim Lara and approximately midnight Stacy Leigh Ann Gros Causeway between Jefferson Parish and St Tammany Parish green was van in front of them not swerving and later determined to be driven in its lane staying The women The by the notified the Causeway Police of their observations Causeway Police Officer Mike Thomas to dispatched was investigate the report concerning the defendant and after observing the defendant s vehicle drift in its lane and follow too vehicle closely behind the vehicle Officer Thomas s over in front of it patrol unit was fitted with video and audio equipment The State played the videotape of the vehicle stop The defendant exited clothes s his eye Officer Thomas asked the defendant what had defendant replied Tyrone to New Orleans for complain of Predicate a 1 a disarray and he had blood hit meeting me and The defendant a headache blurred vision was set forth Judicial District Court Docket DWI conviction in black guy nausea or on recording at trial Officer Thomas The right side of his face near his vehicle and walked toward defendant were pull his instructed the defendant to the happened to him and the subsequently indicated he had gone had hit him The defendant did not any other medical problem the defendant s October 16 2001 DWI conviction under Twenty second 324073 Predicate 2 was set forth as the defendant s October 22 2001 as under Twenty first Judicial District Court Docket 2 96018 Officer Thomas detected defendant also swayed and the license plate his vehicle Officer Thomas found or nonreactive and defendant strong odor of alcohol he stood as on a no belonged The defendant nystagmus was balance performed poorly himself no registration pupils being different on the test He failed to follow instructions pursuit and distinct and at maximum deviation performed poorly The defendant refused to on the walk and turn field not touch his heels to his toes stepped off of the line The defendant indicated he had test to a He turned perform the sobriety one knife in his pocket not I should have joking stayed Baby leg stand field sobriety Lodge I being frisked Hey babe Babe I messed up at trial from St Dr Demory Inglese exams Miranda2 a breath Im going I m sorry apologize of his response to his head trauma indicated the results of the medical I m sorry steady test but while telephone and stated presented testimony Office Medical Director Dr Richard account the His arms to to subsequently refused to submit to I messed up at the Masonic The State also on He test He used his incorrectly and he stopped initially denied having any weapons Thereafter he called his wife jail I m sizes test on the Officer Thomas arrested the defendant for DWI and advised him of his rights The to another vehicle His eyes had lack of smooth extremely poor He did He proof of insurance and breath s performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety The defendant also balance no the defendant indication of the defendant s concerning not moving his head sustained He had on taken was Tammany Parish Sheriffs Inglese indicated the defendant quite unusual by the defendant Dr were s Inglese also inconsistent with significant neurological injury The State also presented testimony from fingerprints matched the fingerprints predicate 2 Miranda on a fingerprint expert that the defendant s the bills of information for 2 v Arizona 384 s U 436 86 S Ct 1602 16 L Ed 2d 694 3 1966 predicate 1 and SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment of sufficient evidence that he reasonable on number 1 the defendant argues the State failed to error under the influence of alcohol was hypothesis that he was not drunk but drove sobriety tests result of a the field as a The standard of review for whether viewing the evidence in the light identity s conducting this as review we to prove excluded State writs denied SO 2d 732 in the 99 0802 La a 10 29 99 is based most favorable to the at 3 The reviewing favorable circumstantial 19 99 innocence is 730 SO 2d 485 486 La 11 17 00 773 on both direct and circumstantial evidence the by viewing that evidence When the direct evidence is thus viewed by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the was a rational juror to conclude beyond guilty of every essential element of the a crime 730 So 2d at 487 court is to the required to evaluate the circumstantial evidence in the light prosecution and determine if any alternative hypothesis sufficiently reasonable that reasonable doubt s hypothesis of 1 Cir 2 In proved that the evidence 748 So 2d 1157 2000 0895 prosecution reasonable doubt that the defendant most to be every reasonable circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for Wright 98 0601 conviction is 5 R 15 438 conviction the facts established a reasonable doubt Louisiana court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence light uphold prosecution any rational a SSIY mindful of Wright 98 0601 p 2 La App quoting La When reviewing v beyond assuming every fact order to convict in tie also must be expr part to essential elements of the crime and the the perpetrator of that crime I evidence test which states in tends injury he had sustained most favorable to the proved negate the erratically and performed poorly sufficiency of the evidence trier of fact could conclude the State defendant head and to provide When a rational a case juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond is a involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there 4 is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt State Smith v 2003 0917 5 p La App 1 Cir 12 31 03 868 So 2d 794 799 The crime of vehicle when the 14 98 A 1 light a thorough review of the record most favorable to the State a The defense the defendant ie than intoxication La 5 R convinced the evidence viewed in proved beyond and there we the facts and circumstances 11 29 06 reasonable doubt a and to the hypothesis of innocence all of the elements of third offense s identity as the perpetrator of jury reasonably rejected the hypothesis of innocence presented by the reviewing the evidence This we are vehicle while intoxicated and the defendant that offense La operating of any motor operator is under the influence of alcoholic beverages exclusion of every reasonable operating vehicle while intoxicated is the a a After the operating s lack of coordination was no other the result of head trauma rather hypothesis that raised cannot say that the presented was a reasonable doubt jury s determination to them See State v irrational under was Ordodi In 2006 0207 p 14 946 So 2d 654 662 assignment of is without merit error CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE In assignment of error number 2 the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to strike prospective jurors Smith Johnson Diehl they indicated they would hold the defendant OWl convictions The State juror is not or the defendant may impartial whatever the will not accept the law as given s prior challenge cause to him of his by the a and Dennie for juror for cause partiality court or on La because against him on the cause the ground that the ground that the juror Code Crim P art 797 2 797 4 In order for a defendant to prove error and sentence he need cause and defendant s 2 use warranting reversal of both his conviction only show the following of all his challenge for 1 erroneous peremptory challenges cause is denial of Prejudice is a challenge for presumed when a erroneously denied and the defendant exhausts all his 5 peremptory challenges challenge 3 An erroneous violates his substantial 2003 1834 pp 5 6 ruling depriving rights and constitutes reversible La 5 25 04 rulings will be reversed only when reveals cause abuse of discretion an is not an error A trial a review ruling he has demonstrated Keith Smith Julie Johnson a and whole as a prospective juror for on further willingness and ability to decide the The defense asked the knowledge that the defendant had cause notwithstanding that the juror has voiced at 6 inquiry an or impartially case 875 So 2d at 62 63 Charles Diehl and Richard Dennie only panel of prospective jurors even Taylor v challenges for excuse a according to the law and the evidence Taylor 2003 1834 them take them off of the State of the voir dire record judge s refusal to abuse of his discretion on opinion seemingly prejudicial to the defense when subsequently instruction peremptory a 875 SO 2d 58 62 A trial court is vested with broad discretion in these accused of an were on the first and panel if becoming privy to the twice before been convicted of DWl would influence plane of being fair and unbiased or lessen the burden of proof Smith indicated he would indicated it would depend on be negatively influenced the merits of the case the defense could do to take that out of the trial Dennie stated a bout this but not When asked if there he stated particular charge p robably He conclusively anything was not He is in court for That what I m s here for Diehl indicated the asked if that was how the case on imbedded It s a prior two offenses would prejudice him something the defense could fix plays belief out The defense asked Diehl feeling that you have or or overcome Diehl It a little bit Diehl stated s a When d epends feeling you have deep responded Not a belief no It definitely does carry some prejudicial feelings toward your client 3 The rule is now 120 S Ct 774 presumption of different at the federal level 145 L Ed 2d 792 prejudice arising 2000 See United States exhaustion of from trial court s v Martinez Salazar 528 peremptory challenges does not trigger erroneous denial of a cause challenge 6 s U 304 automatic Johnson stated don t know if I could Nothing basically truthfully I feel the really be fair we can Johnson do to replied r Thereafter the State same way I think it is The defense asked a pattern of behavior And t hat s toward the defendant change kind of the way you feel You are speaking ight following colloquy occurred I want to also briefly talk to I believe it was Mr Smith initially defense counsel talked to you about the consequences of finding out that the defendant has two prior DWI convictions Of course human nature is that you are I think you were pretty honest Obviously I m when going to it s something that will strike me and affect me But this is what the State has to prove and this is the answer that is very important for the State to know for the judge to know a nd for the defendant and his attorney to know If I tell you that the judge is to going instruct you that the State has to prove that those there are two prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt but you cannot convict solely on the fact that he has two other convictions and that that is not to influence you regard to this third case that you are to put that aside and decide whether or not he is guilty of this particular DWI based solely upon the evidence you hear about the facts that occurred on 14 15 2004 with May can May you do that Smith Yes State Without reservation you can put those feelings aside and decide this case with regard to this DWI conviction aside from the fact that he has those other two Smith Yes Dennie It State You could follow that Dennie Yes State him just Dennie s about No today problem If I fail to prove this DWI third you are not going to convict because he had a DWI first two DWI convictions in the past No State Would the fact that he has these other two influence how you look at this evidence Dennie No It s about the State Mr Diehl Diehl When asked like that State Instructed that way same charges question 7 we re to you about I today Diehl When asked that way yeah It would be State You understand what my burden is I have to prove to you that these other two existed But you cannot convict him of this third one just because he has those other two look at the evidence in the Diehl 4 Nods head State case Or have that influence the way you of the DWI third affirmatively Can you do that 5 Diehl Definitely State Same Johnson Yes I could State Do you understand the difference now Johnson Yes State Obviously you think God he has question Ms Johnson hope he is not guilty of this third one But you are influenced by that obviously It s knowledge that you will have that you wouldn t normally have in a criminal case But you need to be able to put that aside and judge the facts of this based case happened two more I what I present to you in this court of law about what May 14th and May 15th And never mind about the fact that on on he had the other two convictions Johnson Yes The defense moved to strike Smith dire The court denied the citing his overall challenge and the defense used statements its third in voir given peremptory strike against Smith The defense also moved to strike Johnson presented about the underlying which are DWI first prejudicial to the defendant citing the DWI second s ame and her cause on 4 challenge against Johnson The voir dire Devillier 5 transcript was the The voir dire assistant transcript Devillier was the assistant the The court denied The defense asked the court to note its indicates this answer came attorney general indicates this objection to the from PROSPECTIVE JUROR DEVILUER Emma J from PROSPECTIVE JUROR DEVILUER Emma J at voir dire answer came attorney general challenge the referencing their responses concerning being influenced by the defendant s underlying convictions the were considering those factors Before the court ruled defense also moved to strike Diehl and Dennie for issues which at voir dire 8 court s ruling Dennie Diehl and Johnson The defense used its fifth and sixth peremptory strikes against Johnson and Diehl and stated if it had not exhausted its on peremptory strikes it would also have struck Dennie The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in against Smith Johnson Diehl and Dennie cause willingness and ability to decide the case The denying the challenges for prospective jurors demonstrated a impartially according to the law and the evidence This assignment of error is without merit IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY In assignment of number 3 error the defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling the defense objection to Dr Richard Demory Inglese testifying regarding a neurologist s reports If scientific technical understand the evidence or or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to determine by knowledge skill experience training an opinion or otherwise Trial courts expert witness are and work training rulings on was an experience the qualification of experience alone on the a and weight 34 977 p 10 8 30 02 Dr accepted to be La qualified testify thereto as an expert in the form of witness as an expert will A combination of La specialist 823 So 2d 941 2001 2963 a 10 10 97 in a given such testimony App 2 Cir 9 26 01 expert person may qualify Berry 95 1610 p 20 La App v 97 0278 a an specialized not to its 10 14 02 admissibility as an expert Generally the State to the effect v Dorsey 142 writs denied 2001 2876 La 827 So 2d 414 Inglese the medical director for the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office over defense objection as an expert 9 can 1 Cir 11 8 96 particular field applies only 796 SO 2d 135 La 703 SO 2d 603 an not be practical application of the expert s knowledge State medical doctor is not a abuse of that discretion 684 So 2d 439 456 writ denied fact that may witness great discretion in determining the competence of combine to demonstrate that that person is based upon education or a La Code Evid art 702 vested with disturbed unless there fact in issue a to was in the fields of internal medicine and emergency medicine of adult and Inglese internal medicine involved the treatment patients for medical problems other than those treated by obstetrics gynecology general surgery fields such as He indicated internal medicine cardiology pulmonary The State asked Dr Dr trauma the to Dr According cancer encompassed all of the subspecialty medicine and infectious diseases Inglese if he had occasion to evaluate acute Inglese indicated he had treated several serious head traumas per week for approximately fifteen years he had been He had received extensive physician a training in emergency medicine during his residency had worked physician patients for in Korea Force Base in and had evaluated Maryland Office Medical Director he several saw emergency room in the emergency room at Andrews Air patients He indicated that in his as an capacity as St Tammany Parish Sheriffs people per week with massive facial or head trauma Dr Inglese indicated it deputy bringing way if was the prisoner to the jail would ask him a they had any medical problems been in might hurt or kill themselves and in the might be pregnant If the Medical or her if they ill were or injured they were taking any medications case if in any they had twenty four hours if they thought they of female prisoners if they thought they prisoner answered any of the questions affirmatively the deputies would call medical personnel problem if or motor vehicle accident within the last a booking policy of the St Tammany Parish Jail that the to perform personnel would refuse and would instruct the deputy to a limited exam on the prisoner before accept any prisoner who had to take the prisoner to the a bad hospital for further evaluation In the case of a check the oriented the prisoner with head prisoner s mental trauma prison medical personnel would first including whether the person status whether the medical person could hold the prisoner could fully converse and answer was awake prisoner s attention and whether questions appropriately Secondly the prisoner s wound would be evaluated to determine whether the prisoner bleeding whether the wound Lastly any injury on or was around the infected was actively and whether the wound needed sutures prisoner s eye would be evaluated 10 alert and to determine if it involved the ball of the eye the eye was Any injury swollen that so involved the ball of the a good eye prisoner s eye the eye would be evaluated to determine if near exam if or a could not be good eye exam If the performed could not be injury performed the deputy would be instructed to take the prisoner to the hospital for evaluation The medical personnel who examined the defendant Jail did not instruct the at the St Tammany Parish deputy with the defendant to take the defendant to the hospital Outside the presence of the medical condition defense jury the State indicated the defense and the State intended to was relying on a question Dr Inglese concerning findings in medical records provided by the defense The provided defense from were to the objected ophthalmologist which neurologist a Dr proposed questioning Dr which Inglese had testified Inglese was care that indicating the documents not was was and from an referred out of the jail for treatment The court overruled the question Dr objection holding that the State should be allowed to Inglese concerning records submitted by the defense and the defense could question the doctor examination in on cross In response to State questioning regard to his fields of expertise Dr Inglese indicated that on May 17 2004 two days after the defendant s release from the St Tammany Parish Jail the defendant ophthalmologist regarding an of being hit in the right eye his eye and brow laceration on May 15 2004 referred the defendant to the emergency the findings of the ophthalmologist He thought as with room a The defendant gave blunt a saw history object The ophthalmologist for evaluation Dr Inglese summarized follows the defendant s deep set And he wondered if it was possible that was some swelling or if they were or if there they are just naturally that way So he put trauma question mark sic trauma question mark He had a little drying of his Enophthalmus cornea He also wondered he but sic question mark question mark Possible blowout fracture Meaning were these findings the result of trauma He wasn t really sure And he had a black eye The next a history was of struck day the defendant being injured on the while eyes were a little bit went to Alton Oschner Medical Center where he gave walking to his right side of his face by an 11 car late unknown on May 14 2004 object and fell He claimed he to the ground He claimed knife and a an attempted mugging ensued but the attackers He claimed he then but later drove home with pulled out a blurry vision head pain headache The defendant exception of The out passed away after he ran physical s finding of a a at the emergency exam contusion or a bruise to the normal with the room was right side of the defendant s face treating physician recommended that the defendant get CT a scan just to be sure that he did not have any fractures that he could not feel On orbital or May 19 2004 the defendant had s disorders The defendant passed out A Ganji also ordered an headaches with Dr was 6 MRI and no recover ie was normal evidence of a a a in neurology and sleep since the incident knife fought off no a May 14 single attacker abnormal The MRI on findings was Dr essentially The defendant had follow up visits for Dr exams taken Inglese indicated there someone In to deviated scan was a the second the person would not passing condition two medical out later excess a an A intercranial regain consciousness until a blood nasal naturally occurring phenomenon 12 only vasovagal reaction within minutes and revealed that the defendant had septum were trauma and having head regard in the brain by the defendant inconsistent with hole in his skull and removed the indicated the CT but that specialist treatment in account of his response to his head trauma from the first condition bleeding neurosurgeon bored Inglese a sought medical EEG of the defendant s brain and found the medical permanent sequela catastrophe right side revealed Ganji for two years conditions that would result in no an and the EEG significant neurological injury person would Ganji injured pulled out Inglese found the defendant s quite unusual Dr scan complete neurological examination revealed completely normal Dr Dr complained of chronic headaches 2004 where he claimed he 6 The scan medical records indicated he next September of 2004 when he visited have CT facial fracture The defendant and a septum deviated towards the Dr Dr Ganji diagnosed the defendant as suffering Inglese indicated however that the diagnosis no upon other also indicated that whether someone nothing about how hard they head were had hit or cross been never conceded qualified he defendant had was Dr examination initially and doesn presented at the St t say there was a bad was the defendant and enough neurologist and had a or psychology not He also present when the Tammany 1 as a Parish Jail right side of the defendant s face May 15 2004 booking photograph of He indicated the near the orbit photograph depicted He indicated he could not photograph alone without records of his medical examination and tests There Inglese Dr evidence and or an not was determine the extent of the defendant s head injury from the reading He Tammany Parish Jail Inglese identified Defense Exhibit to the based post traumatic headaches said neurology ophthalmology examined never diagnosis of exclusion turn made you wobble and stumble Inglese conceded he in the areas of the defendant from the St injuries Dr post traumatic headaches history given by the patient did not have injury four months earlier that would have in On was a for the headaches other than the reason from was no abuse of discretion in overruling the defense objection against Dr Inglese s specialized knowledge assisted the jury determining facts ophthalmologist in issue did not bar his The fact that Dr testimony but rather Inglese in understanding the was not was a matter a neurologist of the weight of the evidence This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the above and defendant s arguments on foregoing appeal we reasons and because we find affirm his conviction and sentence CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 13 no merit to the
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.
