State Of Louisiana VS Darrin Raiford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KA 2272 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DARRIN RAIFORD Judgment Rendered May On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Washington State of Louisiana District Court No 06 CR5 95313 The Honorable Elaine DiMiceli Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for District State of Louisiana Attorney H Gregory Briese Assistant District Attorney Appellee Franklinton La Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge La Frank Sloan Baton Rouge Appellate Counsel for Defendant Appellant La Darrin Raiford BEFORE CARTER C J WHIPPLE AND DOWNING n 8 2009 CARTER C J The defendant Darrin Raiford with second entered guilty a as trial degree murder plea of The trial court denied the defendant sentenced was to probation parole appeals assigning following trial 14 30 1 a without the benefit of F or the violation of La R S After The defendant now charged by grand jury indictment guilty not charged defendant a was reasons we error as by jury life or to The defendant the defendant found motion for s imprisonment at new hard labor of sentence suspension the was The sufficiency of the evidence affirm the conviction and the sentence STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 28 the victim was 2006 between 4 00 p shot to death while at the through an area an complex in approximately crashed through a sport utility vehicle Isuzu Bogalusa Louisiana commonly referred to as the to four times After the an As Horseshoe A male stop handgun and the shooter fired the the exterior wall of victim suffered four Dagrick Moses m apartment complex the shooter signaled for him individual gave the shooter SUV and 5 00 p operating SUV in the Sunset Acres apartment the victim drove m gun into the shooting the victim s vehicle apartment before stopping gunshot wounds including lethal artery lung and The head InJunes ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In the evidence in Specifically establish his sole assignment of error the defendant contends that the support of the second degree murder conviction is insufficient the defendant identity as contends the shooter the evidence The defendant 2 was insufficient to notes that State witness Gemilia Henry was gun into the victim the s only witness who testified to seeing Henry identified the shooter car defendant argues that the State failed to establish that he The defendant concludes that the circumstantial evidence State on the identification issue failed to negate a known as Wop presented by reasonable a The Wop as was fire someone the probability of misidentification the State submits that the defendant did In response issue during the trial and therefore did addressing the merits of the defendant obvious from referring to a not preserve the issue for to appeal transcript that the witnesses using the nickname Wop In were Henry testified that Wop shot the victim and the State concludes that there evidence this argument the State argues that it is s review of the entire trial the defendant when not contest sufficient was negate any reasonable probability that Wop was not the defendant In reviewing Louisiana the appellate United States sufficiency of the evidence Supreme Court in Jackson S Ct 2781 2789 61 L Ed 2d 560 adopted by the the evidence was Legislature sufficient to convince enacting 164 a conviction a v Virginia 443 U S 307 319 That standard of appellate 99 review most favorable to the prosecution rational trier of fact that all of the elements of a 907 So 2d 1 L Ed 2d 305 evidence La R S 15 438 a La Code Crim P art 821 is whether light proved beyond 2003 0897 La 4 12 05 1569 1979 when viewed in the the crime had been S Ct in support by the standard enunciated by the is controlled court to 2006 provides reasonable doubt 18 cert denied When State 547 U S v Brown 1022 126 analyzing circumstantial that the trier of fact must be satisfied that 3 hypothesis of innocence the overall evidence excludes every reasonable State Graham 2002 1492 La v court is appellate An thirteenth in juror fact State Azema v rests solely La 4 29 94 free reject State accept which depends matter is one of the weight a case hypothesis falls and App where the reasonable a 1st Cir 1984 App La about factual a one v a writ jury is Moreover the resolution of matters credibility of the witnesses the sufficiency trier of fact does of innocence the defendant is Azema presented by was unless guilty reasonable doubt State writ denied probability State 1993 Richardson the fact that the record contains evidence that Moten v 514 So 2d 126 key issue is the defendant whether the crime 1st Cir As the trier of fact of the evidence not its hypothesis that raises 1 st Cir in criminal not render the 633 So 2d at 727 involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact a hypothesis a part the testimony of any witness testimony accepted by reasonably rejects by only 38 App La accepted by the trier of fact insufficient When proof 727 determination of the Thus So 2d at 38 evidence a upon in as the sound discretion of the trier of on or conflicting testimony conflicts with the La in whole give evidence to 637 So 2d 460 Richardson 459 So 2d 31 v where there is 459 or 845 So 2d 416 420 03 constitutionally precluded from acting 633 So 2d 723 denied 94 0141 to 14 2 assessing what weight that determination cases 1 Cir App identity s the committed as State La the defense there is that another 510 So 2d 55 61 1987 Additionally the perpetrator rather than is required to negate any of misidentification in order to carry its burden of Smith 430 So 2d 31 45 witness may be sufficient 4 to La 1983 Positive identification support the defendant s conviction State 94 2021 Hayes v La denied 95 3112 La 4 18 97 State witness testified Henry the trial at of her apartment walked to her estimated that her apartment the writ only eyewitness the to shooting who in apartment number some commotion outside Sunset Acres Henry heard doorway and witnessed the shooting Henry located was ninety feet away from the of area shooting On the as the was the time of the incident two at 94 692 So 2d440 Henry lived in thirty 665 So 2d 92 1 Cir 11 9 95 App Tube day in question Henry driving through the Horseshoe two times within twenty minute interval The first time Henry saw identified to by Henry as said he would return that she did According not to back told the victim When asked if Wop know the shooter Wop Henry number twenty W op was s real standing name on the Henry observed Tube when he apartment According to Henry Tube Horseshoe and when he made the asked whether to Danky Henry was as to approximate the victim the shooter come back and the victim Darrin Raiford she Henry stated only knew him Wop s turn W op brother to driving was or as Wop walkway between apartment came was Danky responded positively According walked was an and twenty nine when he instructed Tube eight individual known whom she referred to the victim saw with back at a to and drove slow rate at through the time cousin Samuel Raiford Henry Danky gave her by flagged him down Wop come Wop the gun the An When Henry Wop the passenger window of the SUV and fired the gun into the vehicle four times The car then continued of apartment number sixty 5 moving hitting the exterior wall Danky and Wop then entered Felicia Raiford apartment before s leaving the complex with Felicia in her car witness State leave in a separate vehicle Jacqueline Meyers simultaneously Henry also observed Meyers lived in apartment number thirty had sexual a the victim drove morning and her cellular testified that she wanted was and Darrin When to the defendant the retrieve the cellular and Sam appeared to police The second time Yes Bogalusa At of the telephone some complex Meyers and was unaware Felicia point be pulled Meyers handgun Meyers glance a trailer in Franklinton to a Louisiana at a Meyers recovered the cellular telephone Meyers gave a recorded trailer before statement Meyers said that both the defendant and they entered her vehicle trial that she did not actually contended that she being pressured see However time of her recorded statement 6 Sam Meyers testified the defendant with and threatened over vehicle s a On June 30 2006 was out Danky exited her vehicle Wop and In her statement had weapons when at I gunshots Meyers got got into Meyers at the defendant and Sam off park Meyers stated to she drove as in the vehicle with Felicia specifically asked if returning or shooting Meyers allowed Felicia After she heard telephone testified that Sam had what dropped subsequent times two Near the time of the in her vehicle and followed Felicia of who Sam as through the Horseshoe Meyers heard words exchanged guess in anger use complex Meyers day in question Meyers observed the victim driving through the Horseshoe in the Raiford to of the with Samuel Raiford whom she knew relationship On the Danky one by a gun the at Meyers police at the Moses LaTonya Nicole witness referred to him The victim back came was operating LaTonya through the Horseshoe the responded as called s follows police and arrival scene They re reporting a drive members received to According telephone a Brooke call from just before a identified Eric Lucas weapon as The defense did defendant the was State clearly associated of the leave the or know t Police shooting scene Department Shortly after his another crime to go to Nellie Brooke just prior to by shooting and extended the drive name was family by shooting she female with death threats in retaliation for was its five The State shooting The victims of the drive fired from a passing vehicle to get Brooke by shooter to by the witnesses of the witnesses the Bogalusa present any witnesses questioned none four LaTonya interchangeably referred interchangeably and a the drive not the after the Brooke instructed everyone in the home the murder of her brother As reported scene mother s ten minutes relationship by shooting included Samuel Raiford down the to SUV at the time and she heard brothers cousins I don to s and Samuel Lester Raiford Wop Lieutenant Sorrell had involving and Do you know the Lieutenant Tommie Sorrell of the among the officers State as a with Samuel Raiford relationship LaTonya the following question between Darrin who also testified LaTonya approximately to LaTonya called gunshots sister s LaTonya lived in the complex in apartment shooting According victim left he asked sexual a Danky as sixty eight number of the had LaTonya the victim were and Throughout the trial the State used confused with the defendant 7 as as Darrin and Wop the two to who There names Wop was never was any objection regarding the The eyewitness the to of the use name shooting Wop in reference gunshots into the vehicle she also knew Darrin Raiford Without name defendant not the objection Wop as as or Darrin in During cross When asked if question Henry said she didn question by next the defendant specifically testified that she Henry observed Wop fire four Wop to t know his real the State referred to the examination the defense did question Henry regarding the clear assumption that Wop indeed the was defendant Further the victim to Samuel Raiford defendant Danky Danky as with was scene LaTonya Henry at Danky s Moses testified that she referred testimony clearly established that the the time of the According gave Wop the gun Danky left the sister s to in Felicia Raiford shooting Henry after the shooting s review of the a entirety gun established the defendant s testimony presented identity convinced that the evidence probability of misidentification favorable to the the State prosecution proved beyond reasonable Wop and as Viewing reasons the s testified vehicle and entered her thorough A at trial reveals that the State as the shooter Thus presented herein negated we are reasonable any all of the evidence in a light most any rational trier of fact could have found that reasonable doubt and hypothesis of innocence all of murder and the defendant above a s just after the shooting took place of the Wop and Jacqueline Meyers car that Darrin the defendant and Sam exited Felicia vehicle armed with She stated that identity assignment of as error to the exclusion the elements of second the perpetrator of the offense is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 8 of every degree For 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.
