State Of Louisiana VS Robbie Daniel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 KA 1978 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBBIE DANIEL Judgment Rendered in and for March 23 2007 Appealed from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court the Parish of Pointe Coupee State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 71 123 F Honorable James J Best Judge Presiding Richard J Ward Attorneys for Tony Clayton State of Louisiana Appellee New Roads LA Elizabeth A Engolio Plaquemine LA Jane L Beebe Attorney for Defendant Appellant New Orleans LA Robbie Daniel BEFORE CARTER C J WHIPPLE AND McDONALD JJ WHIPPLE J Defendant Robbie Daniel one count degree murder of second Defendant pled verdict of guilty was labor hard suspension of sentence violation of LSA R S a tried before The trial charged as at imprisonment guilty and not charged by grand jUlY indictment with was court a The jUlY 14 30 1 jury returned sentenced defendant without benefit of a life parole probation to or We affirm FACTS Sparks who lived On October 22 2004 seventeen year old Michelle in Erwinville reported missing was Following Sparks several of her relatives called defendant s cell whereabouts but defendant denied defendant became Produce Stand on having any such Highway s s disappearance brother 4066 Oakland Road at Purpera and defendant had been involved in to Purpera to Salvage in on Brusly his residence around 7 00 p a before defendant garbage can behavior to be the Po Folks an from trailer with The trailer Sparks intimate a s was residence relationship for the at m October 22 2004 approximately 7 30 he left for work a m After he arrived home went to Purpera returned Purpera noticed clipped his fingernails sleep at over a Purpera found defendant s suspicious In response to on at defendant shared few miles that defendant showered three times and phone Sparks and knowledge years According Auto ifhe knew of her Tommy Thompson located s see disappearance 415 in Port Allen Sparks Troy Purpera and Purpera Black to acquainted when they worked together At the time of previous four phone s multiple calls from Sparks s family October 22 and 23 2004 defendant informed 2 to defendant s cell Purpera that Sparks was continued went to to that he had missing and claimed contact by Sparks the West Baton voluntarily give a written Sparks had phoned him if he had mother that he had According nonstop on her further claimed he told could After Sparks s to her Sparks providing the their residence s mother October 24 2004 defendant claimed that going with phoned guy named a night before When he Defendant the over phone Sparks s but had not family he was seen to Purpera returned Shortly thereafter police units from both the question defendant No search of the her any way he premises to West Baton Rouge and Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff s Departments anived residence s Defendant willing to help in defendant and statement Sparks family had called him phone since her disappearance s s him in the afternoon Defendant wrote that he told statement cell was with the sic daughter spoken his friend on days earlier but he missed the call two defendant s to accompanied by Purpera 2004 written statement partyed seen Because of with it statement statement also indicated that asking relatives defendant s Sparks told him that she Jessie that she had to do Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office In his October 24 returned her call nothing at the conducted was at this time On November 4 2004 defendant gave another statement to the regarding there shortly after 9 00 he called Sparks she told leaving to go too noon him that she with and arrived someone the date Defendant stated that a m Sparks around Defendant on job times but that he had been Sparks disappeared in Watson at Action Automotive his whereabouts claimed he left for his police busy to answer According was hung over named Jessie 3 to his Sparks phoned phone Defendant stated defendant when he from the him three spoke with previous night Defendant told the and police was that he had not weeks actually prior until 2 45 p seen to her m Sparks after he quit working disappearance Defendant when he left for Brusly and deliver them to Leonard Guill my restaurant in food 3 35 p to p delivelY to at Defendant told the Sparks s mother then Black 5 November 2004 he began calling the some the s to Purpera that he had been at work from Purpera m Elwinville a call had been made from from the Elwinville area as After opposed the tower thus near some just before 8 00 went to that Brusly to cell phone and in the to Watson anything dog ground sloping into of it October 22 placing defendant pens out of the the home and Purpera noticed a began in the bayou According to lump bayou appeared trampled then noticed what looked like 4 a human which Purpera When he moved Purpera noted that the lump looked like carpet with logs piled Purpera to As he stood in the ordinary located about seventy five feet from his trailer closer on place of s became concerned defendant s speaking with the police Purpera drove search his property for was very lude whereabouts went police was parts to deliver for Purpera According to the records obtained police yard fast at about s police showed him phone records disputing defendant s stmy transmitted back a thirty minutes him and he had worked in Watson until mid aftelTIoon when he by at got home around 5 15 about his and defendant s whereabouts Purpera reiterated up Black at for about s police until he returned home around 7 00 p pick stopped Guillory where he remained another thiliy emploYment asking when the parts from Purpera make the to On a m some and alTived questioning him concerning her daughter 2004 up stayed and that when pick m two stated that he remained at work Defendant stated he Central around 3 00 p fmiy five minutes m Folks about Defendant stated he m then left to at Po on top ribcage and buttocks facing up from the water and carpet off and a Retrieving body floated Purpera pulled hoe a up some of the logs Purpera realized that the carpet covering the body looked like carpet that had been underneath the shed on his propeliy Purpera phoned and nearby an gave to his trailer retrieved his attorney Teny Irby Purpera began defendant in another the number for another to Purpera met Irby describe how he had at case in St Mary Parish attorney Hillar Moore just he then Irby Purpera called Moore contacted the FBI evening same a the body The date after the discovery of the Opelousas where defendant home in body Detective Ron Lejeune of the Rouge Parish Sheriff s Office West Baton warrant he drove away as As he Moore and met with him that regarding keys locked the trailer body behind his trailer Irby stopped him and advised that a representing was back off Rebel Lane area discovered went and collect a DNA was went to staying defendant s mother to sample from defendant execute a s search When Detective Lej eune informed defendant that the body had been discovered in the bayou behind the trailer where he lived buckled and he The Opelousas nearly fell to the to stutter his knees following day November 6 2004 Purpera contacted defendant in When Purpera informed defendant that there day Sparks disappeared was began ground backyard defendant responded that the defendant wearing was some clothes to sweating an out 5 and when he about came to Defendant also told alligator pit Sparks disappeared body in the only thing he could remember that he blacked different clothes and that he had taken the was a in Ville Platte the he Purpera day after Purpera stated that he asked defendant whether he had been involved in During this conversation defendant he was the Grim While Purpera After mother s house in defendant and were at the Sparks s Detective vehicle the be blunt body defendant to ask truck on Sparks investigation the were Michelle 2004 9 00 a m with was Sparks The seized property s of her death cause Following the by the police to was discovery of According the to the police the inside and outside defendant 2004 Detective police obtained had just before 3 00 police indicated defendant was atTested for the murder of Lejeune testified that during the Defendant had claimed he until his at the call Purpera during Purpera on the head contradicted defendant s story of where he 22 Purpera avoided Purpera contacted 2004 Lejeune when defendant turned his truck in spotless happened Defendant remained police body discovered as if that s name police the to about concern defendant trauma to s Purpera On November 18 Opelousas On November 19 Michelle conversation through dental records was shovel a his property but defendant was on request of the police who to perhaps with Purpera expressed he would clear submitting questions determined was as the request of the In the meantime identified body he found the reporting at that he had dreamed Purpera someone with defendant the not to wony defendant s calls relationship Purpera if the police had taken the shovel from their speaking being alTested because told also told Reaper and had beaten Defendant then asked propeliy the relationship with Sparks but defendant denied sexual a was p m was cellular was phone records during the day working on 6 that October in Watson from around However the records obtained in the Erwinville of the course area and made a by the call to at 12 17 p Sparks times while he Defendant s claim that m was at work was also contradicted Following his Lejeune that In an defendant arrest interview Sparks had begun Folks on on the Purpera became with relationship they worked together during this time period engaged needed live find another place as soon as to was times at Purpera calling defendant acted as s never if he knew defendant Purpera Purpera had was gotten into out anger to the fact that there this on a was on Purpera that Sparks called him although Purpera would ask who to defendant Purpera lying and seemed upset the verbal day Sparks was repOlied missing disagreement According over his of his trailer was no told defendant that he 2004 According told him defendant his feet to October 22 prior angry with defendant and wanted defendant get residence and Defendant claimed that and giving him to Defendant claimed he told he could Defendant claimed that numerous not According in sexual relations relationship Purpera he would leave was Defendant claimed it had been three weeks since because of the tension in their to at Po Sparks but stated they talked very angry with him because defendant had Purpera speak with Detective to Defendant claimed that phone anything sexually wise he and by the phone records asked flili with him when to him three November 21 2005 defendant told the detective Defendant denied any actively Sparks had phoned inability to make to defendant more Defendant attributed active sexual relationship he money Purpera s between them at point Defendant told Detective Sparks and described her as Lejeune that he was thinking about seeing Defendant stated sweet And I m the same Purpera testified that he and defendant had an open and free relationship Although Purpera admitted he sti11loved defendant he denied having anything to do with Sparks s murder lAt trial 7 type kind of person you know I explained that part of the he was to because of was no to get his life straight was Defendant fly a longer having Defendant stated that he Sparks get off drugs and reason I wouldn t hurt mean with sex thinking Defendant Purpera about trying acknowledged that Purpera supported him financially and that he could understand Purpera arising from his suspicion that defendant Defendant stated that the anger morning that he Purpera argued events that started me to say ed up all that celiain someone else after he and of October 22 2004 occurring after that just is Purpera told How got f seeing was The day and everything is things that sic strange very s to me I couldn t remember you know Defendant told Detective him to say claimed was that he have to repOlied mother not like the way Black one s of the things Purpera told though defendant even Black at seeing Purpera Purpera began acting now Defendant s after Sparks was go to his Defendant further commented that he did not know how house Purpera did day to at that missing and claimed that Purpera made defendant as s him recollection of no stated that he did saw Lejeune not the see feed their body earlier if he went to the same location evelY dogs During this interview defendant admitted for the first time that he had been with he and smoked their and she Sparks Sparks a on the day of her disappearance had met at the LA Express convenience marijuana cigarette together However meeting was prearranged After they smoked went home was because she in trouble According thought she Defendant claimed 8 saw the store defendant and they defendant denied that marijuana Sparks left her mother to have to s vehicle and feared taken several pills including Zannabars and Xanax in addition to that the State called had lived with of cocaine that Purpera and defendant Thompson testified 11 20 day around defendant Tommy Thompson Purpera and a m returned never appeared normal and there chemical influence was no do three oil changes that was exposed when it been vigorously beaten with A six inch a According under any was little upset a made defendant court to Dr Suarez According The autopsy revealed that heavy object with to most of the skull s was her second and fourth one seized from right Purpera the bones Sparks had damage missing ribs s expert as an to her Sparks Dr Suarez property could damage was Investigation Sparks by five inch section of Spark Charles Watson Crime Lab a shovel much like have caused the on recovered was also sustained fractures agreed that to the fact that he Thompson decomposed and patiially skeletized meaning were head indication he accepted by the trial was pathologist perfo ll11ed the autopsy body to According morning Dr Alfredo Suarez who s that he told the Thompson stated that defendant appeared morning which Thompson attIibuted Sparks brother who s he worked with defendant in Watson and that defendant left work police that a forensic scientist accepted by Watson to Watson at the trial comi black residue been seized and that he sent was some samples 9 an expeli in Crime Scene scene detected on in the present case the skull of the victim scrapings from the shovel of both Quantico Virginia the Louisiana State Police as investigated the crime Watson testified that he collected in balls eight two morning At trial that consuming scrapings to the that had FBI Crime Lab Maureen Bradley accepted by the trial comi Sparks materials s deemed were paint on the victim Adam Becnel Lab was any evidence comi Becnel and forensic evidence not was as an expert in crime was that the scene investigation by defendant and Purpera extremely cluttered and in disarray which as the potential crime from the trailer indicated that nothing collected However state searching and processing for responsible made his search and evaluation of the trailer difficult definitively Louisiana State Police Crime at the found inside the trailer shared Becnel noted that the trailer Although these from the shovel came accepted by the trial was of the black marks taken from the shovel she could forensic scientist a samples scrapings taken consistent head s Quantico expert in the field of forensic paint analysis as an skull and the Crime Lab in at the FBI she examined the Bradley testified that from chemist a scene Sparks had been killed inside the trailer Joanie Wilson Crime Lab was a on an pair of jeans belonging a as to defendant that Blood There was was also a t found any DNA consistent with defendant or The State also called Paul Black was at Purpera work all day s on place there on these jeans s were tested had Sparks as a witness Black employment To According managed Black to Black support Black receipts showing Purpera throughout the day muddy that met defendant No other items that October 22 2004 State introduced business customers of on were shili seized from defendant that had blood it consistent with that of defendant Auto Pmis expeli in DNA analysis court from the knees down profile analyst for the Louisiana State Police accepted by the trial Wilson examined DNA DNA forensic s s Purpera testimony the had been waiting on Black also testified that defendant had been that date sometime between 10 00 10 a m and 2 00 p m P M Reed field a by the State Reed testified regarding calls that witness defendant s cell residence was phone placed the time of the call Elwinville residence transmitter used 11 01 Sparks was a m m a call defendant phone phone cell s originating was the Sparks spoke around 10 00 Taylor was on the to Purpera on a phone cell s tower working transmitted were J ames Balis was day and on observed street a On s tower At in the Sparks s on plans Sparks also called as a witness across Friday October 22 the 2004 more than 11 one pass At made was were m to made from and 1 36 p m day defendant s cell the Elwinville tower who testified Sparks 2004 22 her parents that after their State at on at evening phone call Balis lives from where at Sparks lived around 2 00 p light colored vehicle with tinted windows driving The vehicle made to tower by the street made Watson near Friday October to meet Blidge Sparks friend of a never saw 12634 Pecan Street in Erwinville with her mother Taylor phone with Sparks that Sparks was phone at 1 17 p For the remainder of the and that she had a m s River residence s of which involved any number associated with that he Sparks from Mississippi phone records also indicated that calls phone of on a made from defendant s cell The State also called Jessie his transmitting near at originating involved in calls that was date the involving being used by defendant as was east Port Allen in made fifteen minute call to a another call a m were as a phone This call lasted twelve minutes and the s the Erwinville tower using s also called was residence and transmitted using the Elwinville s The cellular none 9 18 call a a m phone with his phone transmitting defendant s 12 17 p defendant defendant to at 8 20 2004 the phone identified on At area 22 October on Beginning disappearance At engineer for Cingular Wireless very the street and m Balis slowly on eventually at stopped A time to the man Sparks Sparks out got no to was the man couple living at the working in his garden appeared to be knocking response Balis and asked if he knew the trying Balis of the vehicle and Getting home s residence s walked over on to the door speak at the house because he with was adopt their dog The defendant did not After testify any defense witnesses called nor were deliberating the jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Defendant argues that the evidence to at presented trial was insufficient support his conviction for second degree murder Specifically defendant although there argues that he originally stated it evidence sufficient to was was witness to as simply establish his person who killed Michelle identity was not in Watson all rational for the jury evidence that he not identity beyond was also a The standard of review for the conviction is whether suspect and continuously sufficiency of the evidence viewing the evidence in the light the essential elements of the crime Ed 2d 560 C CrP P evidence v 1979 art Virginia beyond 443 U S 307 a most 821 B is an 319 99 S objective standard both direct and circumstantial must be to uphold favorable state a to proved reasonable doubt LSA C CrP The Jackson standard of review analyzing circumstantial evidence of fact the only relevant the prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude that the Jackson as and added facts to get himself off the hook changed his story art 821 as find this reasonable doubt Defendant argues the Sparks Purpera a to day LSA R S Ct 2781 2789 61 L incorporated for testing in LSA the overall for reasonable doubt When provides that the trier 438 15 satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable 12 hypothesis 1 App st 6 3 05 of innocence Cir 05 11 2 See State 906 So v 2005 0717 La l 30 A When the offender has 1 as defines second degree murder specific intent which a exists to kill to or great bodily harm intent Specific is that of mind state criminal consequences Specific intent 14 1 O 1 statements as by s or facts to be LeBoeuf 2006 0153 pp 4 5 at 453 2d resolved 15 9 06 as evidence State Specific intent by the trier of fact App 1st Cir La such the circumstances depicting 906 So 6 the LSA R S to act inference from circumstantial by 2004 0892 at p failure or by direct evidence be proven or actions legal conclusion from his act may defendant a defendant Montecino ultimate to follow when actively desired the prescribed circumstances indicate that the offender such writ denied 453 903 So 2d 456 pertinent pali inflict La 2d 450 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 in Montecino 2004 0892 pp 5 6 is v an State v 943 So 2d 1134 1138 This comi will evidence to oveliurn may v accept reject or not a the in whole present at p case circumstantial evidence the factfinder Montecino 2004 0892 In assess or s in credibility of witnesses produce stand was of fact part the testimony of any witness State 6 906 So 2d defendant s at 453 conviction IS Viewing the evidence in the light and with police regarding his to most solely on favorable to following each other whereabouts Specifically defendant claimed 13 based Sparks from working with her they frequently spoke Defendant lied to the disappeared acquainted reweigh the guilt The trier detennination of the prosecution the record reflects the State established the Defendant or to on at a the phone the date Sparks on be in Watson all day until 2 45 p whereas m Watson at 11 20 that a 12 17 call p a m on and transmitted m within proximity to following his Moreover had been with Sparks at a defendant arrest In this marijuana together he had feelings for Sparks store same eventually admitted was ask Detective Lejeune how strong Purpera would not allow to the Defendant later told blacked and his mother an s Purpera that home in s near on was saw alibi was before defendant statement went even for that so far as to Evidence day Purpera that he his to fingernails he was Ville Platte the disappearance Sparks over next was on 14 on having the Grim Her can he a some his way a to dream Reaper and shovel body was badly decomposed body was October 22 2004 but her discovered until November 5 2004 of disposed day while Defendant discussed in which he trash a of over disappearance s he might have hit someone with reported missing was aware wearing different clothing Purpera that to Purpera defendant take three showers the date of came Opelousas stated that in this dream he not s disappearance evening and clip alligator pit following Sparks Sparks s Defendant admitted sweating clothing in Sparks and that when he out 2004 a his leaving Purpera the jury that defendant had assured he arrived home and of the course of thinking was Purpera to be prosecuted On the date of anything amiss incriminate that he they had he knowledge that s Purpera and an also introduced at defendant admitted that statement then initiated was residence s placing defendant tower live in lover As reflected in his November 21 to Sparks in Elwinville and that despite Sparks Defendant claimed he attempt to this time convenience smoked homosexual at phone the Elwinville on Elwinville cell s in job Cellular phone records indicated October 22 2004 placed from defendant was that defendant left his Tommy Thompson testified found under shed on in carpet logs had been piled When defendant body down discovered in the bayou he In carpet usually kept under the same In addition to the the property where defendant lived wrapped the carpet which was the some onto it in an apparent effort informed that the was to weigh had been body appeared visibly shaken support of his assignment challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his claim of innocence defendant argues that be body being equally suspect as he his kept changing Purpera should the State However story negated this hypothesis of innocence by introducing records from Purpera employer indicating Purpera 5 30 p m on November 21 was a an work from jealous lover 2004 statement been involved in at 2004 and did October 22 disputed that he was open insinuated to 00 until a m Moreover leave not as According just before 8 s Purpera by defendant in his Purpera he and defendant had relationship which defendant did not dispute during the November 18 2004 phone call overheard by the police The State also introduced evidence that Jessie her on day and did not victim had rest of the phoned the come negated the theory that Sparks person when it introduced an morning was highly unlikely other with her s but the home dog Sparks had been murdered Detective and her by man clothing truck disarray no or DNA identified with residence Detective When defendant s truck a was seized on with spoke there in was body placed found in it some home on defendant Lejeune noted that the trailer was 15 Sparks suspicious Lejeune deemed body of water and fortuitously floated behind defendant s Although the State Moreover from Balis who stated he at the adopting the Sparks that contact friend of the a disappearance but worked the abducted from her home testimony individual who had arrived connection with into of her Taylor November 6 was 2004 s in the vehicle had disposed of Sparks s A defendant admitted Moreover spotless was some of his clothing in alligator pit that he day following the disappearance pair of defendant s jeans defendant had been in near the dog his knees up to the muddy indicating that water up to muddy on it and the discovered also had duckweed in it consistent with blood s were at some point Police also seized pens behind the trailer in which defendant lived shovel had duckweed definite connection seized which were knees and stained with defendant shovel an Purpera to scrapings of paint scraped in which bayou from the shovel Sparks s The body was the FBI could not establish Although paint from Sparks s skull Finally a to be deemed were a the State presented the audiotape of the conversation between Purpera and defendant wherein defendant assured with Sparks In Purpera that if he murder defendant would s circumstantial whether another evidence allow that this cases prosecuted to court in connection happen does not determine possible hypothesis suggested by defendant could afford exculpatory explanation of whether not were evaluating the Rather evidence the issue before this in events light the favorable most an court is the to prosecution the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational doubt State cert juror v could not have found Davis 92 1623 p denied 513 U S 975 In reviewing this 115 S case we 11 proof of guilt beyond La 5 23 94 reasonable 637 So 2d 1012 1020 Ct 450 130 L Ed 2d 359 note a that defendant not 1994 Purpera was suspect who continually changed his story during the investigation or purposeful misrepresentation has been recognized awareness App 1 st of Cir wrongdoing 1990 See State writ denied v Alpaugh 572 16 So 568 So 2d 65 La as LYing indicative of 2d 1379 1384 1991 the The an La jury concluded that obviously placed in Sparks bayou under logs the in present a more the Moreover believed self serving effOli an apparently recognized following his his activities and whereabouts been wrapped in carpet and avoid discovery body had s and arrest to defendant changed his version of the events jury apparently found Purpera Purpera had nothing to do with was the Grim shovel constituting as occuned Reaper and had struck on the date more than with someone dream a mere the trauma basis to falls raises the a case Sparks s body State v most favorable defendant had the a was guilty as charged the to opportunity negated Moten 510 So La 1987 prosecution to kill we 2d 55 61 Viewing La App to any any claim that 1 st the evidence in the find the State established Sparks and dispose of her body behind destroyed the physical evidence that would and that he directly connected him presented by guilty unless there is another hypothesis which light including by hypothesis of innocence writ denied 514 So 2d 126 also killed the defense that hypothesis Cir State was found reasonably reasonable doubt his trailer was involves circumstantial evidence and the jury and the defendant is a alleged dream evolving story coupled with the other s evidence established that defendant rejects a Considering all of the evidence herein the jury clearly had conclude that defendant When he dreamed Sparks disappeared and included details later proven by seventy five feet fl om defendant s residence and that she blunt death something possibly given that The evidence further establishes that the evidence to anest disappearance and s about attempt following his comments that Finally the jury could have viewed defendant s he an jury testimony credible and s Sparks continually lied story in own As the In the crime hypotheses of canying its burden of proof innocence the urged by defendant Purpera had committed this crime 17 have that Jessie Taylor and was involved in her murder or that an unknown person had killed her conveniently dumped and concealed her body behind defendant s residence Thus we find conviction of second This the evidence sufficiently defendant s supports degree murder of enor is without merit assignment INTRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS In this in defendant argues that the trial cOUli ened assignment of enor argues that the killed was photographs and were were taken as long cumulative gluesome Defendant of the victim into evidence allowing multiple photographs as weeks after the victim two highly prejudicial and of no probative value Defendant argues that the admission of three testimony of Dr Suarez was enor because the Defendant contends that the question predators were of death cause the was never in photographs reflecting the victim decomposed body with the soft tissue and brain flies and other photographs dUling presented to by crawfish maggots eaten the jUlY s solely for shock value and to incite the jury for vengeance In the any fact case of sheds any photographic light 18 La Ct 104 scene value 775 So are or any generally admissible to establish severity of wounds State prejudicial effect 2000 cause that illustrates case or reliably thing depicted is admissible provided its 2d 1022 148 L Ed 2d 62 evidence and and outweighs 126 00 photograph upon any factor at issue in the represents the person place probative evidence any v Casey 99 1037 celio denied 53L U S 840 Photographs A trial cOUli 18 s identity luling 121 S of the victim at the murder to prove corpus of death 0023 p on delicti or the corroborate other the number location admissibility of such evidence will be disturbed not effect of the evidence prejudicial The fact that the outweighs its probative value does the only if of itself render them inadmissible photographs State are gluesome Davis 92 1623 v at p 24 637 So 2d at 1026 not Although apparently State Exhibits issue are used during condition of death not at was proof was intent to Dr Suarez Sparks s issue s one can of the elements be illustrated Accordingly admitting these This we find no to photographs photographs argues that the kill the State Sparks s skull s cause of burden of In the present clearly probative and were the possessed abuse of discretion enor or were As discussed earlier by circumstantial evidence to at of death and cause comprising relevant to the issue of whether her assailant kill The illustrate the Although defendant the severity of the wounds case to testimony skull 53 and 54 52 whether defendant had the intent kill the specifically identified by defendant requisite by intent to the trial court in photographs assignment of enor is also without merit MOTION FOR MISTRIAL In this III denying statements argues that the trial comi ened assignment of enor defendant a on improper motion for mistrial after the prosecutor made during several occasions both his initial and rebuttal closing argument According to defendant prosecutor while commented That is man to take mesh and comi displaying during one prosecutor of the absolutely honible for this beautiful child and maggots the Following cautioned the prosecutor to an closing argument s of Sparks Reaper over pictures the Grim turn her into this objection by a bag body there my of bones and defense counsel the trial be mindful of LSA C CrP 19 s the mi 774 the Resuming his argument the State statement for sucking the life Look eyes at were asking out ta her Defense counsel s Look put him in Angola for the rest of his life you Emotional It is what it is this child at her prosecutor then made the following Everybody in the Courtroom look that the prosecutor again objected arguing running afoul of the bounds of Article 774 photograph in evidence was Look at her the trial comi s at her statements Commenting that the nonetheless cautioned the prosecutor to be mindful of the article Sometime later Please folks believe you Defense counsel prosecutor during his closing argument the prosecutor stated was me Robbie Daniel killed Michelle objected and moved for a mistrial on Sparks the basis that the The trial court denied the giving his personal opinion motion for mistrial to According counsel defendant the prosecutor standing ovation then moved for an a following closing argument by defense clapped and stated Oscar but he mistrial on they just don t get it give him a Defense counsel the basis that the prosecutor had exhibited unprofessional conduct and had engaged comi I don t know if to again denied defense counsel s in theatrical antics The trial motion for mistrial Finally during his rebuttal argument defense counsel again objected when the Hill s prosecutor stated child counsel the the re guilty of was re guilty of sucking After the the life out of Retha ensuing objection by defense exchange degenerated into back and fOlih accusations between lawyers regarding who 2 that You You was more unprofessional The trial comi ended In brief defense counsel argues the prosecutor attempted to introduce a poster not in evidence However the transclipt indicates the prosecutor merely used the poster as an outline to summalize testimony 20 adduced duling the tlial the Gentlemen emotions exchange by stating they are confined conclusions of fact that the the law applicable jurisprudence in on admitted evidence to state the to LSA C CrP case the scope to the verdict to Louisiana of judge closing arguments court will not reverse has broad Even if the a conviction that the argument influenced the thoroughly convinced contributed 774 art FUliher the trial prosecutor exceeds those bounds the unless to misconduct allows prosecutors wide latitude prosecutorial controlling the lack of evidence defendant may draw therefrom and or choosing closing argument tactics discretion in to that closing arguments is the scope of general rule concerning The and told lunning high argument up sir P lease wrap your the prosecutor are State Casey 99 0023 v 17 at p jury and 775 So 2d at 1036 At the outset supporting defendant s that note we conviction we to be sufficient thoroughly convinced that the prosecutor influenced the jury the wisdom and or contributed propriety defense counsel has s a trial court verdict we improper verdict While to improper we are unable We caution that exceeding the bounds we not unduly question assignment of elTor is also without merit 21 to say such although such of latitude to be find that the record supports the herein Thus this are we comments and actions performance a edges perilously close granted by an s Thus prosecutor in clapping and insinuating that a just given actions rendered the jury conduct of to already found the evidence have jUlY S verdict DECREE For the above and sentence are foregoing reasons the defendant affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 22 s conviction and
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.
