State Of Louisiana VS Jason Melerine
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL I v ST T FR NUMBER 2012 KA 1565 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JASON MELERINE Judgment Rendered MAY 0 2 2013 Appealed from the 22 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Washington Louisiana Trial Court Number 10 109927 CR8 Honorable William Crain Judge Walter P Reed Attorneys for Appellee District Plaintiff Attorney Covington LA State of Louisiana Kathryn Landry Baton Rouge LA Prentice L White Appellate Project Baton Rouge LA Louisiana Attorney far Appellant Defendant Jason Melerine BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ Hon William F Kline Jr retired is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Supreme Court Louisiana WELCH J The defendant 7ason Melerine was charged by grand jury indictment with two counts of vehicular homicide violations of La R 1432 He pled not S 1 guilty and following a jury trial was found guilty as charged The defendant filed a post verdict judgment of acquittal which was denied On each count he was sentenced to eighteen years at hard labor with the first three years ofeach sentence to be seroed without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The trial court also imposed a fine The sentences were ordered to run 00 000 10 concurrently The defendant now appeals designating one assignment of error We affirm the convictions and sentences FACTS On the evening of 7une 26 2010 the nineteen defendant and some old year friends went bowling at Tiffany Lanes in Mandeville The defendant was with Jason Crain Beth Bria Desirae Gabler and Eddie Gabler Desirae younger s brother They all rode together in Jason truck s Desirae was the defendant s girlfriend and Jason and Beth were engaged At the bowling alley Jason Beth and the defendant drank among thernselves two pitchers of beer After bowling they went to the drive of Daiquiris and Creams in Mandeville Everyone through ordered a daiquiri except Eddie The defendant had a large daiquiri called Ecstasy with an extra shot of alcohol added to the drink They drove back to the s defendant house in Franklinton in Washington Parish From the defendant s house the group got into separate vehicles and drove to Jason house Desirae s drove Eddie home before going to Jason house s Desirae became sick from drinking too much and began vomiting At about 00 m 1 a on June 27 2010 Desirae mother Rachael called Desirae cell phone s s and spoke to her daughter At appro 430 a Rachael called her mately m daughter on her cell phone but she did not answer Rachael called again and 2 Desirae answered and told her mother she was sick and handed the phone to the defendant Rachael told the defendant that Desirae was supposed to be home at 00 m 3 a The defendant told Rachael that he would bring Desirae home The defendant drove Desizae home in Desirae struck Jason and Beth with Jason driving followed in the defendant 199 Chevrolet pickup truck After s dropping off Desirae the defendant got into his truck with Jasor and Beth riding in the front as passengers At about 4 a the defendant was driving on La 50 m Highway 424 As he came into a right curve at a high rate of speed traveling hand south the defendant lost control of his truck The truck slid off the right side of the roadway and slammed into a tree The impact caused the bed of the truck to separate from the vehicle Jason and Beth were killed in the crash Beth suffered blunt force trauma to the right side of her body resulting in massive internal tearing of her right lung causing her to bleed to death Jason suffered blunt force impact to the mid resulting in extensive fracturing of his skull and tearing of face the interior of his brain The defendant sustained cuts and scrapes to his face and forehead and injured his shoulder ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of enor the defendant argues the edrdence was insufficient to support the convictions of vehicular homicide Specifically the defendant contends the evidence proved only that it was his reckless operation of his truck instead of intoxication that caused the collision A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates due process See U Const amend S XN La Const art I 2 The standard of review far the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 2789 S Ct 3 61 L560 1979 See also La Code Crim P art 821 State v Ordodi 2d Ed B 0207 2006 La 11 946 So 654 660 State vo Mussall 523 So 1305 06 29 2d 2d 10 1308 La 1988 The Jackson standard ofreview incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the averall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence La S 438 R 15 provides that in order to convict the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence See State v 2585 2001 Patorno La App l Cir 6 822 So 141 144 02 21 2d Priar to the 2012 amendment La R 14 S 32 1provided in pertinent part A Vehicular homicide is the killing of a human being caused proximately or caused directly by an offender engaged in the operation of or actual physical control of any motor vehicle in aircraft watercraft or other means of conveyance whether ar not the offender had the intent to cause death or great bodily harm whenever any of the following conditions exists and such condition was a contributing factor to the killing 1 The operator is under the influence of alcoholic beverages as determined by chemical tests administered under the provisions of R S 32 662 2 The operator sblood alcohol concentration is 0 percent or 08 more by weight based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood 4 The operator is under the influence ofalcoholic beverages Under the vehicular homicide statute the tate S must prove that an s offender unlawful blood alcohol concentration combined with his operation of a vehicle to cause the death of a human being State v Taylor 463 So 1274 2d 1275 La 1985 It is insufficient for the State to prove merely that the alcohol consumption coincides with the accident Taylor 463 So at 1275 Causation 2d 2 If the person had a blood alcohol concentration at that time of 0 percent or more by weight 08 it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages La R S c 1 A 662 32 If the person was under the age of twenty years at the time of the test and one had a blood alcohol concentxaTion at that time of 0 percent or more by weight it shall be 02 presumed that the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages La R 32 S 662 d 1 A 4 is a question of fact which has to be conside in light of the totality of ed circumstances surrounding the ultimate harm and its relation to the actor conduct s State v Kalathakis 563 So 228 231 La 1990 2d The defenaant contends that while ttie State did prove intoxicatian it failed to prove that his intoxication was more than just a coincidence to the accident According to the defendant his speech was not slurred and he did not e any ibit signs that he was inebriated Further considering his careful driving throughout the night it was only coincidental that he was int at the time he spoke xicated with the police and EMS We note the defendant testified at trial that he drank beer and a daiquiri with a shot of liquor prior to the wreck The defendant later testified however that he was not 100 percent for certain if he was driving his truck at the time of the crash According to the defendant he remembered dropping off Desirae then walking back toward his truck After this point however he stated I don t remember anything When reminded on cross examination that he told everyone that night that he was responsible far the accident and the deaths of his friends the defendant testified I don thave any recollection of that In closing argument defense counsel reiterating the defendant theory of s innocence suggested that the defendant may not have been driving his truck just prior to the crash Defense counsel further suggested that the defendant s intoxication was not the direct cause of the crash However on appeal the defendant does not assert both theories of innocence in his brief Abandoning the theory that he was not the driver the defendant concedes that he was driving his truck when he crashed and argues only the causation issue insisting that it was his reckless operation of his truck and not his intoxication that caused the collision Accordingly we confine our review to the causation issue See Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 4 12 5 Louisiana State Police T Steven I with Troop L in rooper lanning Mandeville trained in accident reconsiruction inxhe accident scene In estigated documenting the crash ite Trooper Manning along with another trooper developed a report known as a Statian which ased survey equipment and Total GPS coordinates to map out the crash site by poir assigned to the many variables ts at the scene This information could then be used to reconstruct how the crash occurred and to estimate the speed the defendant was tra Trooper Manning eling testified at trial that the crash site was about 300 feet south of D Crain Road C According to Trooper Manning the defendant drove around a right curve and hand crossed the center line into the other lane of travel There was a right curve hand warning sign with a recommended traveling speed of 40 m The defendant h p overcorrected to the right and his truck traveled right and went off the roadway As the defendant stieered back to the left the truck began to yaw traveling forward and slightly sideways The truck struck a tree rotated around the tree and continued to slide until coming to rest near a second tree The inirial impact against the tree caused the bed of the truck to tear from ihe vehicle and travel across the highway where it came to rest on the opposite shoulder of the roadway Trooper Manning estimated the defendant minimum speed to be 80 m s h p Trooper Manning spoke to Yhe defendant at the scene As the trooper had the defendant walk to the front of his police unit the defendant told him that he was driving and that it was his fault Trooper Manning instructed the defendant to stop speaking and Mirandized hirn The defendant then stated that he was driving his truck from Thomas toward Yine and that he went around the curve too fast and crashed The defendant said It my fault Take me to jail Trooper Manning s testified at trial that the defendant swayed as he stood and appeared to be unsteady on his feet He could smell alcohol on the defendant sbreath and he noticed the s defendant eyes were glassy and bloodshot 6 When he asked the defendant if he had been drinking the defendant said he drarik about szx beers At this point Yhe defendant agr to un feld sobriety tests FST ed ergo The defendant tested poorly on a11 three tests the horizontal gaze nystagmus the turn and walk and the one star On the i observation page of his FST leg d aAtial report Trooper 1 netcd the defendau4 Ualance was s and lanning s ng ay r unsure his speeeh was sluned and the l of impairment was obvious aei The defendant was issued a ticket for DWI The defendant was then taken to the Washington Parish Sheriff Office in Franklinton where he underwent a s breathalyzer test administered by Trooper Manning The dwas again fendant Mirandized and submitted to a chemical test for intoxication Based on the sbreath sample taken with the IntoMilyzer 5000 machine which Trooper defendant Manning was certified to use the defendant blood alcohol content BAC was s 101 percent Lieutenant Todd Wood shift supervisor with the Louisiana State Police at Troop L testified at trial and was qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction Based on the information he personally accumulated at the crasri site photographs and the Total Station report Lieutenant Wood calculated that thz defendant was traveling at least 100 m when he crashed Further Lieuzenant V6 found the h p ood roadway the defendant had dri off of to b in very good condition and that there ven were no other factors that could have caused the crash such as physical defects in the road missing signage or a bad shoulder Based on the testimony of Trooper Manning and Lieutenant Wood the s jury guilty verdicis indicated the reasonable conclusion that the defendant s intoxicated condition was a contributing factor in the deaths of Jason and Beth See La R 1432 State in Interest of R 20ll La r 5 Cir S 1 A V 138 pp 11 13 12 82 So3d 402 State v Thomas 2005 La App l Cir 6 2210 9 938 So 168 173 writ denied 2006 La 4 955 So 683 In 2d 75 2403 07 27 2d 7 the absence f internal contradiction or arr conflict w physical Uncilable c evidence one witness te if elzeved y the trier of fact is sufficient s timony support for a requisite factua conclusion An appellate court is constitutionally precluded frorn acting as ajurar tn as vhat w o give enth hirt b essi ight evidenae in crirtiinal cases that deter r soleiy on the saur discretion rzinatian sts d of the trier of fact Thomas 93 So a i4 The trzer of fact is free to 2d 75 accept ar reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness including an expert State v Ducksworth 496 So 624 634 La App 1 Cir I986 When 2d a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presenYed by Yhe defense that hypothesis falls anct the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt See State v Moten 510 So 55 61 La App l Cir writ denied 514 2d 2d So 126 La 1987 The evidence clearly established the defendant had an unla blood ful alcohol aoncentration while he w driving his truck Witnesses testified the defendant drank beer and a daiquiri on tk night he wrecked his truck e The evidence further supports the jury fnding that the defendanYs inebriated s condition caused him to wreck his truck which resulted in the lear of Jason and hs Beth Under these circ iven the defendant reckless manner of zmstances s driving it was reasonable for thz jury to infer tl his intoxication contributed to at his running off the road while traveling et 80 m and 100 m losing veen h p h p control of his truck and hitting a tree See State v Trahan 93 La App l 1116 Cir 5 637 Soe2d 694 701 Accordingly there was sufficient es 94 20 02 idence of a caasal relationship between t def blood alaohol concentration and ie endant s the deaths of the victims to support the coxivictions After a thorough review of the record we find that the ecidence supports the s jury unanimous verdicts We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the 8 light most favorable to the State any rational i of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion oz every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant was guilty of i ular ehic homicide beeause his intoxication combined with his operation of his vehicle caused the deaths of Jason and Ber See Thomas 938 Sn at 175 h 2d For the foregoing reasons the defendant conyictions and sentences are s affirmed CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 9
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.
