State Of Louisiana VS Patrick D. Washington
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 KA 0142 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PATRICK D WASHINGTON nGr Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana District Court No 449302 The Honorable Allison H Penzato Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Covington La State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge La Frank Sloan Counsel for Defendant Appellant Mandeville La Patrick D Washington BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J CARTER C J The defendant Patrick D Washington was charged by bill of information with possession of cocaine a violation of La R 40 He pled not guilty S 967C The defendant was tried by a jury and convicted as charged The defendant filed motions for a new trial and for a post verdict judgment of acquittal The trial court denied both motions The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for five years and ordered to pay a 1000 fine The court suspended four years 00 of the sentence and ordered that the defendant serve a period of five years on supervised probation upon his release The defendant now appeals urging in a single assignment of error that the evidence presented by the state is insufficient to support the conviction Finding no merit in the assignment of error we affirm the defendant s conviction and sentence FACTS On April 1 2008 the St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office received a s complaint regarding narcotics activity at the apartment the defendant shared with his girlfriend Melissa Krepps in Slidell Louisiana Several narcotics detectives were dispatched to the residence to conduct a knock and talk investigation The defendant Krepps Kellie Dean Krepps aunt and two small children were s present when the officers arrived Detective Brandon Stevens advised the defendant of the nature of the complaint and requested permission to search the residence The defendant agreed to allow the search and executed a written consent to search form During the search of the residence the detectives found what they recognized as a crack pipe under an air mattress in the guest bedroom Kellie 2 Dean admitted that she owned the crack pipe and that she used it that day to smoke drugs at the residence Dean also claimed that she received the crack cocaine she smoked from the defendant Detective Scott Saigeon proceeded to search the yard of the residence During the search Det Saigeon observed a twobyfour stake loosely implanted in the center of the backyard When he removed the stake Det Saigeon found a medicine bottle attached to the end of the stake with wire and electrical tape Several rocklike substances that were later determined to contain cocaine were found inside the medicine bottle SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain the possession of cocaine conviction Specifically the defendant contends the circumstantial evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to establish that he was aware of the presence of the small amount of crack cocaine in his yard or that it was subject to his dominion and control He asserts the state failed to exclude the hypothesis of innocence that the medicine bottle containing the crack cocaine actually belonged to his girlfriend Melissa Krepps with whom he shared the apartment The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution a rational trier of fact could conclude the state proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant sidentity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt See La Code Crim P art 821 State v Johnson 461 2d So 673 674 La App 1st Cir 1984 The Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 S 3 99 S 2781 61 L 560 1979 standard of review incorporated in Article Ct 2d Ed 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt State v Summit 454 So 1100 1104 La 2d 1984 cert denied 470 U 1038 105 S 1411 84 L 800 1985 S Ct 2d Ed When analyzing circumstantial evidence Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence State v Nevers 621 So 1108 1116 La 2d App 1st Cir writ denied 617 So 906 La 1993 2d When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact 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 App 1st Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 2d 2d 1987 To support a conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance the state must prove that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the contraband herein cocaine La R 40 The state need not prove that the S 967C defendant was in actual possession of the narcotics found constructive possession is sufficient to support a conviction State v Trahan 425 So 1222 1226 La 2d 1983 A person not in physical possession of narcotics may have constructive possession when the drugs are under that person dominion and control State v s Gordon 93 1922 La App 1 Cir 11 646 So 995 1002 A person may 94 10 2d be deemed to be in joint possession of a drug that is in the physical possession of another if he willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control it See State v Hamilton 2002 1344 La App 1 Cir 2845 So 383 392 03 14 2d writ denied 2003 1095 La 4 872 So 480 04 30 2d 12 At trial of this matter the state used circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant had dominion and control over the cocaine found in his yard The St Tammany Parish Sheriff officials testified that they were s dispatched to the defendant residence in response to complaints of narcotics s activity Dean an overnight guest at the residence admitted that she owned the crack pipe found inside the residence and that she had recently smoked crack cocaine that she received from the defendant Dean further testified that the defendant exited the back door of the residence to retrieve the cocaine he provided her Consistent with Dean claim Det Saigeon testified that the crack cocaine s was found in the center of the defendant backyard approximately 10 to 15 feet s from the back door Det Keith Dowling and Det Scott Saigeon both testified that once the stake and connecting medicine bottle were brought inside the residence the defendant immediately lowered his head before claiming he did not know there was cocaine on the premises Det Saigeon further testified that the defendant looked like he was going to be sick Although the defendant now claims that the crack cocaine possibly belonged to Krepps defense questioning at the trial seemed to suggest that the cocaine belonged to Dean an admitted drug addict The jurors who sat as triers of fact and judges of credibility were aware of Dean admitted drug problem and that Krepps s resided at the apartment with the defendant The jury rejected the hypothesis of innocence that the crack cocaine belonged to Dean or Krepps The jury apparently considered Dean testimony establishing that the defendant provided her with s crack cocaine after returning from the back yard of the residencethe location 5 where the drugs were foundand the detectives description of the defendant s reaction once he realized the medicine bottle had been discovered and concluded that the crack cocaine belonged to the defendant and that he exercised dominion and control over it We do not find this conclusion unreasonable The evidence presented at the trial of this matter was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence all of the essential elements of the crime of possession of cocaine and the defendant s identity as the perpetrator 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 La 11 946 So 654 662 Furthermore 06 29 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 La 1 1 So 417 09 21 3d 418 per curiam This assignment is without merit For the foregoing reasons the defendant s conviction and sentence are affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 0
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.
