State Of Louisiana VS Alfondo Demond Hamilton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 KA 1048 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ALFONDO DEMOND HAMILTON Judgment Rendered On Appeal December 23 2009 from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana District Court No 12 06 0139 The Honorable Donald R Johnson Judge Presiding Hillar C Moore III Counsel for District State of Louisiana Attorneys Baton Rouge La Appellee Aaron Brooks Monisa L Thompson Attorney Assistant District Prentice L White Counsel for Defendant Appellant Baton Alfondo Demond Hamilton Rouge La BEFORE lQ il CARTER 7e 14Qe ClM J C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW n CARTER C J The defendant Alfondo Demond Hamilton information with 14 34 1 After a one He entered count of second of five years The defendant evidence to prove at found was guilty as bill of violation of La R S a to trial by jury He received charged a hard labor appeals citing insufficient was degree battery plea of not guilty and waived his right a bench trial defendant sentence charged by was to as his sole assignment of error that the support his conviction because the State failed that the victim sustained extreme physical pain as required by La R S 14 34 1 FACTS On March 28 2006 the victim manager at Popeye a s restaurant in Baton the defendant had been in a months earlier the restaurant and at working walked challenging her Scharnett asked the defendant would contact the police if he counter a the working approximately 1 00 p counter m leave the Scharnett emergency s As Scharnett a drink at attempted aid and the defendant left room at Our was at Several times restaurant restaurant five by cursing and indicated she Scharnett and walked behind the to dial the phone to contact police the defendant began repeatedly striking her Another employee to as a the defendant where Scharnett verbal confrontation leave the to to to was stayed The defendant then threw service that ended approximately at The defendant created Scharnett and Scharnett Rouge Louisiana Scharnett and relationship On this date appeared Engreath Lady of the Lake 2 Scharnett Hospital was transported the came to the Scharnett testified that she sustained a a laceration hematoma the size of over key a blows from the defendant severe and lime behind her left ear as a not result of the injuries caused her Photographs taken of Scharnett several days a scar over The defendant did requiring at least four stitches and Scharnett testified that these excruciating pain after the incident reflect her left eye her left eye at testify trial DISCUSSION In his evidence only assignment of was insufficient to error the defendant contends that the support his conviction because the State failed to prove the victim sustained the level of extreme La R S 14 34 1 The standard of review for conviction is whether the prosecution a sufficiency of the evidence viewing the evidence 1984 560 821 art State The Jackson 1979 standard for v v standard of review light most uphold favorable a reasonable doubt 461 So 2d 673 443 U S 307 incorporated 674 La 99 S Ct 2781 in Article 821 is to proved Code La App a 1 Cir 61 L Ed 2d an objective testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for analyzing that the fact finder excludes every reasonable So 2d 1251 beyond Johnson Virginia reasonable doubt When provides in the to rational trier of fact could conclude that the State the essential elements of the crime Crim P physical pain required by 1255 La App circumstantial evidence La R S 15 438 must be satisfied that the overall evidence hypothesis of innocence 1 Cir State v McLean 525 writ denied 532 So 2d 130 La 1988 At the time the incident occurred pertinent part 3 La RS 14 34 1 provided in Second degree battery consent of the serious is a victim when the battery committed without the offender intentionally inflicts bodily injury For purposes of this article serious bodily injury means injury which involves unconsciousness extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member organ or mental faculty or a substantial risk of death bodily It is undisputed that the defendant intentionally committed It is also clear that Scharnett did not consent to the is no evidence the defendant that would have justified his striking to physically her battery Moreover there battery suggest that Scharnett did anything to a threaten The repeatedly defendant maintains the evidence is insufficient because the State failed prove Scharnett injuries s were The trier of fact is free any witness establish The 4 2 04 serious to testimony of accept in whole a any 878 2d So 582 In this So 2d 1026 offense declined State expert to case v serious Odom in part the the trial 2004 1105 court find the defendant bodily injury 2003 1772 writ denied 588 or testimony of victim may present sufficient evidence that the victim sustained testimony of to La without the 1 App 10 8 04 Cir 883 of the elements of the aware guilty La to of the lesser offense of simple battery The record establishes defendant a laceration requiring at least four stitches sized hematoma behind her left these injuries record we evidence was severe are and light a over her left eye and Schamett testified the excruciating convinced that viewed in the ear struck Scharnett repeatedly After a a pain causing key lime caused by thorough review of the rational trier of fact could conclude the most favorable 4 to the State and with the credibility determinations made reasonable doubt and to by the fact assignment proved beyond the exclusion of every reasonable innocence all the elements of the crime of second This finder of error has no hypothesis degree battery a of I merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED In brief the defendant argues the present case is comparable to State v Helou 2002 2302 La 10 23 03 857 2d So 1024 wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a defendant s second degree battery conviction and entered a conviction for simple battery on the basis of insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury or extreme physical pain suffered by the victim We find that case distinguishable from the present case The victim in Helou sustained only profuse bleeding from his nose as opposed to the present case in which the victim sustained a laceration requiring stitches and a large hematoma behind her ear Moreover the victim herein testified as to the severity of the pain associated with her injuries 5
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.
