State Of Louisiana VS Charles Junius Brunet
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 0343 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CHARLES JUNIUS BRUNET Judgment Rendered SEP 1 3 mmn Appealed from the Thirty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Case Number 531 853 Honorable David W Arceneaux Presiding ell Jason L Waitz Jr Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Jason P Lyons State of Louisiana Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant District Attorneys Houma LA Bertha M Hillman Counsel for DefendantAppellant Louisiana Appellate Project Charles Junius Brunet Thibodaux LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY I The defendant Charles Junius Brunet was charged by amended bill of information with one count of second degree battery count I a violation of La S 34 R 14 and one count of a hate crime count II a violation of La R 1 S 2and pled not guilty on both counts Following a jury trial he was found 107 14 guilty as charged on both counts On count I he was sentenced to two years at hard labor suspended with two years of probation subject to six months in parish jail On count II he was sentenced to an additional one year at hard labor suspended with two years of probation subject to six months in parish jail The court ordered that the sentences on counts I and II would run consecutively but the terms and conditions of probation would be concurrent The defendant now appeals contending that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was at the scene of the incident or in the alternative that he was a principal to second degree battery or a hate crime For the following reasons we affirm the convictions and sentences on counts I and II FACTS The victim Dedric Knight an African American testified at trial On September 15 2006 at approximately 11 p he pulled into the parking lot of 30 m Bayou Express in Houma to change a flat tire While waiting for his son to bring him the correct jack for his truck he heard racial slurs coming from the area of the store He heard Let kill this n s s let get this n He moved toward the back of his truck and saw two white males approaching him and spreading out He then saw two more white males come out approximately eight feet behind the Dwayne Adam Racine was charged by the same bill of information with the same offenses He was a codefendant at trial and was also found guilty as charged on both counts An appeal record has been lodged with this court in is case 2 first men All four of the men made racial slurs to him The victim indicated that Pete Billiot was one of the first two men and had a 9mm handgun and that Dustin Boudwin was the second of the first two men and distracted him The other two men cre in slowly The victim was scared but couldn pt trun against a gun He told the men Y don have to do this I don even know you guys One of all t t the men then knocked the victim unconscious The victim woke up when his sister and son arrived None of his possessions had been taken but he was lying in a puddle of blood He suffered a shattered cheekbone had to have seven stitches under his left eye and had to have titanium plates and screws placed into his face He missed approximately ten months of work and had extraordinary medical bills At the time of trial he was continuing to have problems with his eye and cheek and had frequent headaches He identified Billiot and Boudwin in lineups but was unable to identify the other two men At trial he initially identified the defendant and Racine as Boudwin and Billiot but indicated regardless of their names they were present at the scene of the attack on him Pete Michael Billiot also testified at trial At the time of trial he was incarcerated for theft over 500 He had also been tried for his role in the attack on the victim and was aware that he could not be punished any more for this offense The defendant was his stepfather and Racine was the defendant brother s and lived in a shed in the backyard of Billiot house Billiot indicated he was s fifteen years old at the time of the incident and had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol At that time he lived on Gustave Lane behind Bayou Express He claimed that after getting drunk he walked alone to Bayou Express and Due to court proceedings following the offenses the victim was familiar with Billiot and Boudwin 3 encountered the victim He claimed Boudwin arrived at Bayou Express about five or ten minutes later to stop him Billiot claimed he had a gun and argued with the victim He claimed he had shown the defendant the gun before he left the house Billiot claimed Racine was not with him in the parking lot but conceded he had previously given a contrary statement to the police He conceded he had previously told the police that Racine struck the victim He also claimed that the defendant was not with him in the parking lot but conceded he had previously given contrary testimony at his trial He conceded he had previously testified at his trial that the defendant had the gun at the scene He also conceded that prior to the attack on the victim he stated L get the n s et Dustin Paul Boudwin also testified at trial At the time of trial he was incarcerated for his role in the attack on the victim He had also previously entered guilty pleas to unrelated charges of forgery and burglary He had known the defendant for a couple of years and had known Racine since the mid 1990s According to Boudwin on the night of the incident he followed Billiot into the parking lot of Bayou Express after Billiot stormed out of the house Boudwin claimed that when he arrived approximately a minute to a minute andahalf after Billiot Billiot and the victim were already arguing Boudwin claimed that he saw Billiot raise up a pistol and told him to put the gun down Boudwin claimed that he heard the defendant stating y come on y come on Boudwin claimed that all all he never heard any racial slurs Boudwin claimed he struck the victim so that Billiot would not shoot him or the victim Boudwin conceded that in his first statement to the police he denied any involvement in the offenses claimed that Billiot had hit the victim and claimed that the defendant bragged that his stepson had knocked the guy out statement Boudwin also stated that Billiot called the victim a n 4 In that and stated Fuck all n s Boudwin conceded he went back to the police station twelve days later but denied any memory of making another statement concerning the instant offenses He conceded however that his signature appeared at the bottom of a second statement given that day concerning the offenses In the second statement Boudwin stated that Racine had hit the victim and that Billiot was yelling n this and n that In the second statement Boudwin also stated that the defendant was out there when it happened and saw everything SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as a principal to the crimes The standard of review for 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 the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a s reasonable doubt In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of scircumstantial evidence test which states in part assuming every fact Louisiana to be proved that the evidence tends to prove in order to convict every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded State v Wright 98 0601 p 2 La App 1st Cir 2 730 So 2d 485 486 writs denied 990802 La 10 748 So 99 19 99 29 2d 1157 and 000895 La 11 773 So 2d 732 quoting La R 15 00 17 S 438 When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution When the direct evidence is thus viewed the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential 5 element ofthe crime Wright 98 0601 at p 3 730 So 2d at 487 All persons concerned in the commission of a crime whether present or absent and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense aid and abet in its commission or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime are principals La R 14 However the defendant mere S 24 s presence at the scene is not enough to concern him in the crime Only those persons who knowingly participate in the planning or execution of a crime may be said to be concerned in its commission thus making them liable as principals A principal may be connected only to those crimes for which he has the requisite mental state State v Neal 000674 pp 1213 La 6 796 So 2d 649 659 01 29 cert denied 535 U 940 122 S Ct 1323 152 L Ed 2d 231 2002 However S t i is sufficient encouragement that the accomplice is standing by at the scene of the crime ready to give some aid if needed although in such a case it is necessary that the principal actually be aware of the accomplice intention s State v Anderson 97 1301 p 3 La 2 707 So 2d 1223 1225 per curiam 98 6 Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another La R 14 Second degree battery is a battery committed without the S 33 consent of the victim when the offender intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury La R 14 prior to amendment by 2009 La Acts No 264 S 34 1 1 A hate crime is committed when any person selects the victim of certain offenses including second degree battery because of actual or perceived race La R S A 2 107 14 After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that a rational trier of fact viewing the evidence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State could find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant was 6 a principal to the second degree battery and hate crime committed against the victim The verdict rendered against the defendant indicates that the jury rejected the defense theory that he was not present at the scene and accepted the theory of the State that he was one of a group of four individuals who attacked the victim 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 2d 55 61 La App Ist Cir writ denied 514 2d So 126 La 1987 No such hypothesis exists in the instant case Further in reviewing the evidence we cannot say that the jury determination was irrational s under the facts and circumstances presented to them See State v Ordodi 06 0207 p 14 La 11 946 So 2d 654 662 An appellate court errs by 06 29 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 07 2306 pp 1 2 La 1 1 So 3d 417 418 per curiam 09 21 This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 7 ON COUNTS I AND II
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.
