State Of Louisiana VS Jacob M. Crawford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT pr 2010 KA 0509 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JACOB M CRAWFORD Judgment Rendered September 10 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 421223 DIVISION G THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J CRAIN JUDGE Walter P Reed Attorneys for PlaintiffAppellee District Attorney Covington Louisiana State of Louisiana and Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge Louisiana Gwendolyn K Brown Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for Defendant Appellant Jacob M Crawford BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ WDONALD I The defendant Jacob M Crawford was charged by bill of information with one count of possession of cocaine a violation of La R 40 and pled not S 967 C guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged Thereafter the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against the defendant alleging he was a second felony habitual offender The defendant agreed to the allegations of the habitual offender bill was adjudged a second felony habitual offender and was sentenced to eight years at hard labor to run concurrently with any other sentence he was serving He untimely moved for anew trial and for a postverdict judgment of acquittal and the motions were denied See La Code Crim P arts 821 A 853 He now appeals contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial and that the trial court erred in accepting his stipulation to the habitual offender bill For the following reasons we affirm the conviction vacate the habitual offender adjudication and sentence and remand for further proceedings FACTS On October 11 2006 St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Aggressive Criminal Enforcement ACE Agents Ben Godwin and Michael Ferrell investigated a complaint of narcotics use and prostitution at a FEMA trailer located at 129A Canal Street in Slidell Agent Ferrell knocked on the door and a white female later identified as Diane Christine Barnlund opened the door but then slammed the door closed and ran into the trailer Agent Ferrell continued to knock and the defendant stated Come in Agent Ferrell asked where Barnlund had gone and the defendant indicated she was in the bathroom Agent Ferrell knocked on the bathroom door and Bamlund exited the bathroom and was escorted out of The predicate offense was set forth as the defendant May 4 1999 guilty plea under Twenty s second Judicial District Court docket 300781 to possession of cocaine in a drug free zone a violation of La R 40 and La R 40 on February 19 1999 S 967 C S 981 3 2 the trailer Agent Ferrell explained that he was investigating complaints of illegal activity at the trailer Agent Godwin noticed a crack pipe containing cocaine residue on the back of the stove located to the defendant left Thereafter the s defendant consented to a search of the trailer and was also escorted out Agent Godwin discovered a 20 rock of crack cocaine under the table where the defendant had been seated and in the area where the defendant had placed his feet According to Agent Godwin the defendant and Barnlund were the only people present in the defendant trailer when the ACE team arrived s Barnlund indicated she ran into the trailer because there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest She was wanted in Georgia but had no criminal history of narcotics violations Her address was listed in St Augustine Florida The defense presented testimony at trial from Maurice Otis He claimed he was present in the defendant trailer along with two women and the defendant s when the ACE team arrived He claimed that Diane had something like wrapped up in a napkin on the front of the table He also claimed he had been with the defendant prior to the arrival of the ACE team and that he never saw the defendant with the crack pipe or the cocaine He conceded he incarcerated with the defendant prior to trial He also had been conceded he had approximately nine felony convictions including convictions for possession of cocaine possession with intent to distribute cocaine and distribution of cocaine SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment of error number 1 the defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he was in constructive possession of the items recovered from his house trailer because the items could have belonged to Barnlund and because he cooperated with the police In assignment of error number 2 he argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial because there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction 3 The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a s reasonable doubt In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of s Louisiana circumstantial evidence test which states in part assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove in order to convict every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded State v Wright 98 0601 p 2 La App 1st Cir 2 730 So 485 486 writs denied 990802 La 10 748 So 99 19 2d 99 29 2d 1157 2000 0895 La 11 773 So 732 quoting La R 15 00 17 2d S 438 When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution When the direct evidence is thus viewed the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime Wright 98 0601 at p 3 730 So at 487 2d As applicable here it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance as classified in Schedule II La R S C 967 40 Cocaine is a controlled dangerous substance as classified in Schedule Il See La R 40 Schedule II A The State is not required to show actual S 964 4 possession of drugs by a defendant in order to convict Constructive possession is sufficient A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it is subject to his dominion and control regardless of whether or not it is in his physical possession Also a person may be in joint possession of a drug if he willfully and knowingly shares with another the right to control the drug However the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere 4 association with the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession State v Smith 2003 0917 pp 5 6 La App 1 st Cir 12 868 So 794 799 03 31 2d A determination of whether or not there is possession sufficient to convict depends on the peculiar facts of each case Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute possession include his knowledge that drugs were in the area his relationship with the person found to be in actual possession his access to the area where the drugs were found evidence of recent drug use and his physical proximity to the drugs Smith 2003 0917 at p 6 868 So at 799 2d After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that a rational trier of fact viewing the evidence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State could find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence all of the elements of possession of cocaine and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that s offense The verdict rendered against the defendant indicates the jury accepted the testimony offered against the defendant and rejected the testimony offered in his favor This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder determination of guilt The trier of fact may accept or s reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness Moreover when there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses the matter is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency State v Lofton 96 1429 p 5 La App 1st Cir 97 27 3 691 So 1365 1368 writ denied 97 1124 La 10 701 So 2d 97 17 2d 1331 The jury rejected the defendant theory that the cocaine found at his feet in s his house trailer belonged to Bamlund 5 When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt State v Moten 510 So 55 61 La 2d App 1st Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 No such hypothesis exists in 2d the instant case Further in reviewing the evidence we cannot say that the jury s determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them See State v Ordodi 2006 0207 p 14 La 11 946 So 654 662 An 06 29 2d appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rationally rejected by the jury State v Calloway 20072306 pp 1 2 La 1 1 So 09 21 3d 417 418 per curiam Accordingly we find no merit in these assignments of error RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT In assignment of error number 3 the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to advise him of his right to remain silent at the habitual offender hearing This assignment of error has merit After a habitual offender bill of information is filed the court in which the instant conviction was had shall cause the defendant to be brought before it shall inform him of the allegations contained in the information shall inform him of his right to be tried as to the truth thereof according to law and shall require the defendant to say whether the allegations are true La R 15 The S 529 a D 1 statute further implicitly provides that the court should advise the defendant of his right to remain silent State v Griffin 525 So 705 706 La App 1st Cir 1988 2d In the instant case the trial court failed to advise the defendant of his right to remain silent A trial court failure to properly advise a defendant of his rights s under the habitual offender law requires that the habitual offender adjudication and on sentence be vacated See State v Fox 98 1547 p 4 La App 1st Cir 6 99 25 740 So 2d 758 760 761 Accordingly the defendant habitual offender s adjudication and sentence are hereby vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed herein CONVICTION ADJUDICATION AND AFFIRMED SENTENCE HABITUAL VACATED OFFENDER REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 2 The defendant is not protected by principles of double jeopardy from a rehearing on the allegations of the habitual offender bill See State v Dorthey 623 So 1276 1279 La 1993 2d 7
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.
