State Of Louisiana VS Jody L. Swafford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 1791 i A STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JODY L SWAFFORD Judgment Rendered May 6 2011 Appealed from the TwentySecond Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 432816 Honorable William J Crain Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee Covington LA State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Mary E Roper Baton Rouge LA Counsel for DefendantAppellant Jody L Swafford BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ WHIPPLE I The defendant Jody L Swafford was charged by grand jury indictment with first degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 S 30 The defendant pled not guilty and following a jury trial was found guilty as charged The defendant filed a motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal which was denied The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals designating two assignments of error We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS From Florida the defendant went to Slidell in St Tammany Parish following Hurricane Katrina to find work cutting and removing trees The defendant met Timothy Murray a North Carolina man who ran a tree cutting service and the two began working together Murray also began working with Carl Glass Jr a fifty old year seven man who was also in the tree cutting business and lived on Pearl Acres Road in Slidell Glass allowed Murray to park his RV in Glass yard and s live in it Over time Murray became aware that Glass carried a lot of money Murray told the defendant about the money and they eventually decided to rob Glass On April 8 2006 the defendant and Murray entered Glass home under the s pretense of visiting him As Murray spoke to Glass who was sitting in a chair wearing only boxer shorts and socks the defendant approached Glass from behind and wrapped his arm around Glass neck in what is commonly known as a sleeper s hold As the defendant held Glass Murray repeatedly struck Glass in the face and The State did not seek the death penalty 2 head Glass died from the attack The defendant took Glass wallet which s contained 950 and he and Murray left 00 The defendant had borrowed a car a Chevrolet Cavalier from his friend Sabrina Jones Instead of returning the car to Jones the defendant and Murray drove to a lake off of 159 and jumped into the water to rinse off the blood on their bodies and clothes They changed clothes which they had brought with them and went to several bars in Mississippi They then went back to Louisiana and drove around St Tammany buying crack cocaine with the robbery money they took from Eventually they drove to Shreveport where they met up with Murray s Glass friend Julie Webber The defendant and Murray abandoned Jones car at a hotel in s Shreveport and the three of them drove to Mississippi and then to Jacksonville Florida in Webber car s The defendant left Murray and Webber in Jacksonville and made his way to Tampa Florida Murray and Webber went to North Carolina About ten days after Glass was killed the defendant turned himself in to the authorities in Florida and gave a recorded statement to Detectives Marco Demma Jr and Chad Farrell both with the St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office s In his statement the defendant told the detectives that he put Glass in a sleeper hold to choke him out However Glass struggled and fell on top of the defendant The defendant claimed that while on the floor he released Glass from the hold and that at that point Murray repeatedly struck Glass in the face The defendant did not testify at trial ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 In his first assignment of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the first degree murder conviction Specifically the defendant contends the State did not prove he killed Glass or that he had the Murray 2 also turned himself in and was interviewed by the same detectives in North Carolina 3 specific intent to kill Glass A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates Due Process See U Const amend XIV La Const art I S 2 The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson v Vir inia 443 U 307 319 99 S Ct 2781 2789 61 S P Cr B L Ed 2d 560 1979 See LSAC art 821 State v 4rdodi 20060207 La 1 946 So 2d 654 660 State v Mussall 523 So 2d 1305 130809 06 29 La 1988 The Jackson standard of review incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence LSAR 15 S 438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence See State y Patorno 2001 2585 La App 1st Cir 6 822 So 2d 141 144 02 21 First degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of a list of enumerated felonies including simple robbery See LSAR 14 30 Thus while the defendant S A 1 contends the State failed to prove he intended to kill Glass the State was required to prove that the defendant during the commission of a simple robbery or aggravated burglary had the specific intent either to kill Glass or to inflict great bodily harm upon Glass Specific intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act LSAR 14 Such state of mind can be S 10 1 4 formed in an instant 390 State v Cousan 942503 La 11 684 So 2d 382 96 25 Specific intent need not be proven as a fact but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of defendant State v Graham 420 So 2d 1126 1127 La 1982 The existence of specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the trier of fact State v McCue 484 So 2d 889 892 La App 1 st Cir 1986 In his taped statement to Detectives Demma and Farrell the defendant admitted that the reason he and Murray went to Glass home was to rob him s After Glass invited them inside the defendant approached Glass from behind while Glass was sitting down in his boxer shorts The defendant stated he applied a sleeper hold to Glass neck and tried to choke him out However Glass was s too big for the defendant and a struggle ensued The defendant said he and Glass fell to the ground When Glass landed on top of the defendant the defendant let go of Glass However since Glass would not go to sleep Murray repeatedly punched Glass When the defendant got out from under Glass the defendant took s Glass wallet which was in Glass pants near his bed The defendant told the s detectives that Glass was alive when he and Murray left The defendant also stated I did not kill that man Detective Demma testified at trial that he was not at the crime scene but he did review the evidence from the scene including photographs of the defendant s bloody T and the blood patterns on the floor where Glass was killed shirt Detective Demma opined that the blood transfer from Glass wounds to the s s defendant Tshirt was indicative of the defendant holding Glass in a choke hold while Murray struck Glass in the face Also there was blood on an area of the floor which was smeared and contained footprints Glass was wearing socks when 3 T choke out a person with a sleeper hold is to cause that person to temporarily pass out due to restricted blood flow to the brain 5 he was killed and the bottoms of his socks were bloody Thus he stated these factors and the blood patterns on the defendant T as well as the lack of s shirt castoff or blood against the wall were inconsistent with the defendant claim s that he was under Glass on the ground while Glass was being struck by Murray According to Detective Demma the crime scene as depicted in the photographs and evidence showed that Glass was neither kneeling nor lying on the ground but was standing as defendant choked and held him from behind while Murray struck him in the face Dr Michael Defatta a forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Glass testified at trial that Glass had received several blows to the face and had nasal bone fractures underneath the bruising of the nose There was also a small bruise on the right side of his neck Further regarding injuries to Glass neck Dr s Defatta stated Now examination on the internal examination of the strap muscles of the neck revealed multiple areas of bleeding or hemorrhage As we peeled back each of these areas we found areas of multiple bleeding in that That suggested some type of strangulation The eyes of Mr Glass also the white parts were bloody they were red which goes along again with some type of strangulation s The brain itself was bloody There was what known as associated left temporal lobe subarachnoid hemorrhage of the with the blows to the head Given this from a trauma standpoint the strangulation is the most important cause Dr Defatta further noted that Glass had areas of hemorrhage on both sides of his neck He stated that with the type of choke hold at issue wherein the chin is placed in the crook of the arm if applied long enough and if the victim struggles then that type of struggle can certainly result in a hemorrhage He stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and blunt force traumatic injuries When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense that 6 hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt See State v Moten 510 So 2d 55 61 La App 1 st Cir writ denied 514 So 2d 126 La 1987 In finding the defendant guilty the jury clearly rejected the hypothesis that the defendant meant only to place a sleeper hold on Glass and that when Glass struggled and fell to the ground the defendant released Glass The jury verdict reflected the reasonable conclusion s that the defendant wrapped his arm around Glass neck and maintained a s constricting unrelenting grip around Glass throat and neck while Murray s continually struck Glass in the face and head Also given the severity of the beating Glass sustained the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant struck Glass as well Each participant in the attack aided the other in bringing about Glass death and the guilty verdict indicates the jury found from s the unrebutted evidence that the defendant killed Glass and that he had the specific intent to kill Glass or at the very least intended to inflict great bodily harm upon him See LSA S 14 see also Moten 510 So 2d at 61 62 R 24 We note as well that a finding of purposeful misrepresentation reasonably raises the inference of a guilty mind as in the case of flight following an offense or the case of material misrepresentation of facts by the defendant following an offense Lying has been recognized as indicative of an awareness of wrongdoing State v Captville 448 So 2d 676 680 n La 1984 4 The facts in this case established acts of both flight and material misrepresentation by the defendant After attacking and killing Glass the defendant fled to another state Further when the defendant gave his statement to the detectives he attempted to minimize his level of culpability by suggesting that he only briefly choked Glass that The 4 defendant did not testify and presented no rebuttal testimony 7 Murray made him choke Glass and that Murray beat Glass because the choke did not work The jury heard all of the testimony and viewed all of the evidence presented at trial and rejected the defendant assertion that he did not kill Glass Thus the s jury found the defendant guilty as charged As the trier of fact a jury is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness Moreover when there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses the matter is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency The trier of fact determination s of the weight to be given evidence is not subject to appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a factfinder determination of s 98 25 guilt State v Ta lor 972261 La App 1st Cir 9 721 So 2d 929 932 We are constitutionally precluded from acting as a thirteenth juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases See State v Mitchell 993342 La 00 17 10 772 So 2d 78 83 Moreover even if the record contains some evidence which conflicts with the testimony accepted by a trier of fact such evidence does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient State v Quinn 479 So 2d 592 596 La App 1 st Cir 1985 After a thorough review of the record we find that the evidence supports the s jury unanimous verdict 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 of the first degree murder of Carl Glass Jr See State v Calloway 20072306 La 1 1 So 3d 417 418 per 09 21 curiam This assignment of error is without merit 8 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence a gun that was found in the trunk of Sabrina Jones car when the car had been abandoned by the defendant and Murray s after driving it around for several days Specifically the defendant contends the gun was not relevant since it was not alleged to have been used in the commission of the offense At the conclusion of the State case the prosecutor sought to introduce s s State Exhibit 62 which was the gun that was recovered in the trunk of the car after Swafford and Murray abandoned the vehicle Defense counsel objected on the grounds of relevance and the trial court overruled his objection Generally evidence of criminal offenses other than the offense being tried is inadmissible as substantive evidence because of the substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant In order to avoid the unfair inference that a defendant committed a particular crime simply because he is a person of criminal character other crimes evidence is inadmissible unless it has an independent relevancy besides simply showing a criminal disposition State v Lockett 990917 La App 1st Cir 2 754 So 2d 1128 1130 writ denied 20001261 La 3 786 00 18 01 9 So 2d 115 Louisiana Code of Evidence article 404 provides 1 B Except as provided in Article 412 evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith It may however be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity absence of mistake or accident provided that upon request by the accused the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding 9 There was no testimony or evidence introduced at trial that connected the gun found in Jones trunk to the defendant The only mention of the gun during s the trial was during the direct examination of Jones about the condition her car was found in after the defendant and Murray had used it for several days Jones was shown photographs of the interior of her car one of which depicted a case of bullets in the center console The following colloquy then took place when Swafford took this car there Q When you gave this car t wasn bloodstains all over the center console were there A No sir Q There was no bloodstains on the seat A No sir Q And there were no bullets on the center console A No sir Q Did you ever have bullets in your car A No sir Q Did you ever have a gun in your trunk A Never Q I going to show you what been marked for identification as S m s 62 Have you ever seen this gun A No sir Q Did you leave this gun in the trunk of your car A No sir Q Are you absolutely certain A I positive m At the conclusion of its case the State introduced all of the evidence presented at trial including the gun found in the trunk of Jones abandoned car s Objecting on the grounds of relevance defense counsel argued there was nothing tying the defendant to the gun and the gun was not relevant to the offense Without explanation the trial court overruled the objection While the reason for introducing the gun into evidence is not clear it appears the State offered it possibly as other crimes evidence illegal possession of a firearm or at the least to show that the defendant was of bad character Whatever the State intent the gun was not relevant evidence s Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 10 consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence LSAC art 401 E admissible except as otherwise provided by positive law All relevant evidence is Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible LSAC art 402 Although relevant evidence may be E excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of E s undue delay or waste of time LSAC art 403 A trial judge determination regarding the relevancy and admissibility of evidence will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion State v Freeman 20070470 La App 1st Cir 9 970 So 2d 621 625 writ denied 2007 2129 La 3 977 07 14 08 14 So 2d 930 No gun was used in the commission of the offense In his statement to the detectives the defendant admitted that he and Murray attacked Glass with their hands No gun was used to gain entry into Glass home and according to the s s defendant taped statement no gun was taken from Glass home Further there s was no testimony or evidence at trial that tied the gun specifically to the defendant No fingerprint evidence was offered The defendant did not testify and no one testified regarding ownership of the gun except for Jones who indicated she had never had a gun in the trunk of her car The evidence of the gun had no independent relevancy besides ostensibly showing a criminal disposition or bad character on the part of the defendant See LSAC art 404 The gun had E 1 B no bearing on any of the facts or evidence used to prove the instant offense and as such was not admissible See LSAC art 402 E Accordingly the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the introduction of inadmissible evidence The erroneous admission of such evidence is a trial error subject to harmlesserror analysis on appeal See LSAC art 921 State v Johnson 94 P Cr 11 1379 La 11 664 So 2d 94 102 The test for determining whether an error 95 27 is harmless is whether the verdict actually rendered in this case was surely S unattributable to the error Sullivan v Louisiana 508 U 275 279 113 S Ct 2078 2081 124 L Ed 2d 182 1993 Johnson 664 So 2d at 100 In the instant matter we find the defendant was not prejudiced by the introduction of the gun into evidence The evidence at trial clearly established that no gun was used in the beating death of Glass The testimony of Detective Demma and Dr Defatta and most importantly the defendant own words via his recorded s admission to the detectives clearly established the defendant guilt As such the s guilty verdict rendered was surely unattributable to any evidence of a gun being found in the trunk of Jones abandoned car and any error in allowing such s evidence to be presented to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt See Sullivan 508 U at 279 113 S Ct at 2081 LSAC art 921 S P Cr This assignment of error is likewise without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 12
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.
