State Of Louisiana VS Curtis Haynes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 0001 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS C I1 I I J 1moYW y Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the TwentyFirst Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa Louisiana Trial Court Number 603 374 Honorable Wayne R Chutz Judge Scott M Perrilloux District Attorney Patricia Parker Asst District Attorney Richard Schwartz Asst District Attorney Amite LA Attorneys for State Appellee J David Bourland Attorneys for Baton Rouge LA Defendant Appellant Curtis Haynes and Margaret Sollars Thibodaux LA BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WELCH J The defendant Curtis Haynes was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of distribution of cocaine a violation of La R 40 The S 967 1 A defendant pled not guilty Following a trial by jury the defendant was found guilty of the responsive verdict of possession of cocaine a violation of La R S C 967 40 The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant to a term of five years at hard labor and ordered him to pay a fine of 5 00 000 The defendant appeals arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of possession of cocaine We affirm the defendant conviction and s sentence FACTS In the fall of 2005 agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency DEA obtained information from a confidential informant CI that the defendant was interested in distributing cocaine in Tangipahoa Parish After taking steps to corroborate the information provided by the CI Agent Chad Scott instructed the CI to contact the defendant Several telephone conversations between the CI and the defendant were monitored and recorded by DEA agents Based on these conversations the agents were aware the Cl had arranged to purchase half a kilogram of cocaine from the defendant for the price of 11 00 000 Agent Scott set up a buybust operation that would occur when the defendant delivered the cocaine to the Cl Agent Scott explained that during a buybust operation the target of the investigation is arrested immediately after transferring the contraband Because the agents planned to arrest the defendant immediately after the transfer of cocaine to the CI and the difficulty in obtaining the significant amount of cash necessary for the transaction the CI was not given any cash for the transaction The buybust operation was set for November 7 2005 in the parking lot of a 2 Winn Dixie grocery store in Ponchatoula Agents Scott and Martin waited in an unmarked unit with tinted windows and observed the defendant vehicle drive into s the parking lot and park close to them The Cl whose vehicle and person had been searched prior to being sent to the meeting point arrived shortly thereafter The Cl also had been equipped with audio monitoring equipment The defendant was waiting outside of his vehicle near the trunk when the Cl pulled up next to him Both men got into the defendant vehicle and Agents Martin and Scott observed s the defendant reach into the rear of his vehicle and hand the Cl a package The Cl exited the vehicle and gave the code word for the arrest to begin as he got into his vehicle and drove away The defendant was arrested by the agents on the scene while another agent followed the Cl and obtained the package the Cl received from the defendant The contents of the package were later tested and weighed at a DEA laboratory and the results indicated the package contained a total of 509 2 grams of cocaine At trial the defendant testified that he met the Cl in 2005 and they remained in contact because the Cl led the defendant to believe he could help him obtain work though FEMA during the clean of New Orleans The defendant explained up he was in the construction business and had heavy trucks that could be used by FEMA The defendant claimed he never discussed a transaction involving cocaine with the CI and claimed the Cl asked him to pick up a package in Houston since the defendant was attending a football game days prior to his arrest The defendant testified the Cl provided him with contact information from someone in Houston and that the defendant met that person at a shopping mall to pick up the package The defendant stated he never questioned what was in the package and did not know who the person he met was On rebuttal the State called Charles Legard as a witness Legard testified that he was the Cl involved in the present case 3 According to Legard his involvement with the DEA began in late 2003 after he was arrested for drug trafficking In exchange for leniency regarding his own sentence Legard agreed to cooperate with Agent Scott Legard testified he had assisted the DEA in approximately thirty cases involving drug activity nine Legard acknowledged that he and the defendant never used the word cocaine in their conversations but instead used coded street terms to negotiate the transaction As an example of their code Legard explained that such innocuous terms as cousin or grandmother indicated that things were safe while discussions involving weather were used to describe the situation For instance if they spoke of bad weather it meant nothing was going to happen as far as the transaction Legard stated that the code for the price of the transaction was referred to as the speed limit and in this case the recording reveals the defendant twice referencing the speed limit which was a code for the price of the transaction being two times fiftyfive hundred dollars 11 as the price for the half 00 000 kilogram of cocaine The tapes also included references made by the defendant to down the middle which Legard explained was a code phrase for the amount of cocaine to be sold which was half a kilogram Legard denied he ever told the defendant to go to Houston to retrieve a package for him but described his relationship with the defendant as the defendant being a supplier and Legard only purchasing the supplied drugs SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine Specifically the defendant contends that the recorded conversations do not reflect a drug transaction was being planned The defendant claims he was unaware the contents of the package were cocaine and that no evidence was presented to show he requested payment when he delivered this package to the Cl 13 The standard of review for the 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 that the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of s that crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S Ct S 2781 2789 61 L 560 1979 see also La C art 821 State v 2d Ed P Cr Wright 980601 p 2 La App 1St Cir 2 730 So 485 486 writs 99 19 2d denied 990802 La 10 748 So 1157 99 29 2d 2000 0895 La 11 773 00 17 2d So 732 The Jackson standard ofreview is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence La R 15 provides that in order to S 438 convict the trier of fact must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence State v Graham 2002 1492 p 5 La App St 1 Cir 2 845 So 416 420 03 14 2d 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 0 Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 2d An 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 The appellate court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or the relative weight of the evidence to overturn the determination of guilt by the fact finder State v Polkey 529 So 474 476 La App 1 Cir 1988 writ denied 536 2d St 2d So 1233 La 1989 As the trier of fact the jury is free to accept or reject in 5 whole or in part the testimony of any witness Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of witnesses the question is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency State v Young 99 1264 p 10 La App 1 Cir 00 31 3 764 So 998 1006 2d A determination of the weight to be given evidence is a question of fact for the trier of fact and is not subject to appellate review State v Payne 540 So 520 524 La App 1 Cir writ denied 546 2d 2d So 169 La 1989 To support a conviction of possession of a controlled dangerous substance the State must prove that the defendant was in possession of the illegal drug and that he knowingly or intentionally possessed the drug Guilty knowledge therefore is an essential element of the crime ofpossession State v Harris 94 0696 pp 3 4 La App 0 Cir 6 657 So 1072 10741075 writ denied 952046 95 23 2d La 11 662 So 477 95 13 2d The defendant does not dispute that the package he gave to the CI contained cocaine What is at issue is the defendant sguilty knowledge In the present case the jury was presented with two theories of why the defendant had a half kilo of cocaine that he was delivering to the CI in his vehicle The State theory was that s the defendant was selling the cocaine to the CI while the defense theory was that the defendant was merely delivering a package to the CI and was unaware of the contents The State supported its theory with recordings of conversations between the CI and the defendant where the CI explained how they never used the word cocaine in conversation but rather used code words to describe the transaction which was the sale of half a kilo of cocaine for 11 00 000 The State also introduced evidence indicating the package was covered in mustard and wrapped in duct tape Moreover the State presented testimony from Agent Scott that this charge was not pursued in federal court because of the ongoing involvement of the Cl in other cases not due to lack of evidence The defense also pointed to the fact that the word cocaine was never used in the recorded conversations and that at no time after the defendant turned the package over to the CI did he request payment However the State presented testimony that in this type of buybust operation as soon as the Cl gained possession of the drugs the agents would arrest the defendant As the State showed once the Cl obtained the package he exited the vehicle and the agents emerged and arrested the defendant Thus it was reasonable to conclude under the circumstances that there might not have been enough time for the defendant to ask for the money After a thorough review of the record we find the evidence supports the s jury verdict of guilty of possession of cocaine The jury verdict indicates that it accepted the testimony of the State witnesses and rejected the testimony of the s defendant We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant was guilty ofpossession of cocaine This assignment of error lacks merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED VA
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.
