State Of Louisiana VS Darrell Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 KA 0324 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DARRELL WILLIAMS DATE OF JUDGMENT SEP 14 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 08 070247 SEC 7 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE DONALD R JOHNSON JUDGE Hon Hillar Moore Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee District Attorney Baton Rouge Louisiana State of Louisiana Mark A Dumaine Sarah Tirrell Assist District Attorneys Baton Rouge Louisiana Frederick Kroenke Counsel for Defendant Appellant Baton Rouge Louisiana Darrell Williams BEFORE WHIPPLE KUHN AND GUIDRY JJ Disposition CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED KUHN J Defendant Darrell Williams was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of La R 14 30 Defendant entered a plea S 1 of not guilty Following a trial by jury defendant was found guilty as charged The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence Defendant now appeals assigning error to the trial court denial of his motion for mistrial asserting that s the State failed to give him notice of the existence of an inculpatory statement by the defendant The defendant has also filed a pro se brief with a supplemental argument on the same issue For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 2 2007 near 3 p Riley Olinde a resident of 8542 Hickock 00 m Drive in Baton Rouge Louisiana observed defendant lying in the doorway at 8610 Hickock Drive next door to Olinde residence s Olinde observed dried bloodstains on defendant shirt Defendant told Olinde that he had been stabbed s and Olinde called for emergency assistance As instructed by the emergency assistance dispatcher Olinde entered the home and discovered the deceased victim Sherrie Albert with whom defendant fathered two children The victim had multiple stab wounds including one to the chest that punctured her atrium and another to the abdomen that punctured her liver The victim body and a s knife believed to be the murder weapon were discovered in a rear bedroom Defendant told responding police that he and the victim had gone to a nightclub and casino and sometime after they arrived at the residence two 2 unknown masked men entered the home and attacked them Defendant further stated that the attack took place during the early morning hours while they were in the bedroom and that he eventually crawled to the doorway to yell for help Defendant was transported to the Earl K Long Medical Center emergency room and treated for injuries secondary to domestic dispute Defendant had several nonlife threatening injuries including superficial lacerations to the chest arms legs and groin A seven centimeter laceration on defendant left wrist his sole s serious injury went through tendons tissue the radial artery and the median nerve causing him to have lost a lifethreatening amount of blood s Defendant urine drug screen was positive for cocaine metabolites and amphetamines Due to the presence of dried blood and the lack of active bleeding the emergency room assessment was consistent with defendant having sustained the injuries more than one day before being admitted Detective Sonya Harden of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office took a statement from defendant at the hospital Defendant claimed to have spent time with the victim that entire weekend According to defendant before arriving at the residence on the night in question the victim scratched defendant face as s they were riding in her vehicle when she became upset after he jokingly threw a shoe at her Defendant also stated that the unknown male subjects barged into the bedroom as he and the victim were about to have sexual intercourse One of the subjects used a silver handled knife to stab defendant in the chest and wrist He was able to maneuver his body to avoid the attempt to stab him in the genital area 1 Based on the location of this injury and the other superficial lacerations Dr Laura Richey and Dr David Melton emergency room attendants concluded that defendant injury was more s likely self inflicted as opposed to a defensive wound or one sustained in an attack 3 Defendant further stated that he lay atop the victim body in an attempt to s convince the assailants that he was dead and stayed there for many hours before managing to get up to get something to drink and call for help in the doorway The police assessment of the physical evidence and the crime scene in its entirety included the discovery of the victim purse on the back seat of her s vehicle an earring on the floorboard of the vehicle an earring just outside of the vehicle signs of a struggle and blood located throughout the home and the absence of blood in the victim vehicle s After the police concluded that the statement given by defendant was inconsistent with the crime scene defendant was considered a suspect in the victim murder and they placed him under arrest s on July 3 2007 The DNA profile obtained from the knife handle was found consistent with defendant DNA profile Additionally DNA profiles from all of s the evidence collected and submitted for testing were consistent with either the defendant or the victim with an absence of any unknown DNA profile COUNSELED AND PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In the counseled assignment of error defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on the State failure to comply with s La C art 716B Defendant specifically asserts that the statements allegedly P Cr made to the emergency room physicians and duly recorded by them in the Emergency Room Record were not res gestae and therefore should not have been admitted because the State failed to give notice of their existence prior to its opening statement despite defendant request for notice of inculpatory statements s The motion for mistrial was based on the testimony of Dr David Melton an emergency room attendant In particular Dr Melton testified that the medical M records characterization of defendant injuries as the result of a domestic dispute s as opposed to a thirdparty attack was based on information provided by the defendant In moving for a mistrial defendant contended that the testimony destroyed his defense Defendant contends that mistrial is the only appropriate sanction in this case In his pro se brief defendant urges that the State failure to notify the s defense of its intent to introduce an inculpatory statement violated La C art P Cr 768 He asserts that although the defense was provided with the medical report prior to trial the report does not show that the included information regarding a domestic dispute was based on statements by defendant While acknowledging that the defense was granted pretrial discovery in this case defendant argues that the State failure to inform the defense that the medical report included a s statement allegedly made by defendant denied the defense adequate time to prepare Before the trial defendant moved to suppress his emergency room medical records based on the State failure to comply with La R 13 and the s S 3715 1 health care providerpatient privilege under La C art 510 After the trial court E granted the motion to suppress the medical records defendant orally moved to exclude the testimony of the emergency room doctors under La C art 510 The E trial court ruled that the medical records and the testimony of the treating emergency room doctors were inadmissible After the State applied for supervisory writs this court reversed the trial court ruling see State v Williams s 2009 1950 La App 1 st Cir 10 unpublished writ action noting in part 09 27 The mere failure to comply with La R 13 does not render S 3715 1 medical records inadmissible See State v Skinner 2008 2522 La 5 55 09 10 So 3d 1212 As to the trial court ruling that the s emergency room doctors who examined the defendant cannot testify E based on health care providerpatient privilege La C Art a 2 C 510 provides for an exception to the privilege if the communication is relevant to an issue of the health condition of the accused in any proceeding in which the accused relies upon the condition as an element of his defense Thus the ruling of the trial court granting the defendant motion to suppress is reversed and this s matter is remanded to the trial court The Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendant application for review State v s Williams 20092529 La 2 27 So 302 10 5 3d At the trial defendant objected to the admission of the medical records and noted his disagreement with the rulings of this court and the Louisiana Supreme Court The trial court noted defendant objection and admitted the evidence s During the State direct examination Dr Laura Richey of the Emergency s Department at Earl K Long Medical Center testified that the emergency room records were filled out by the physicians attending to defendant Dr Richey recited the narrative regarding defendant injuries including the secondary to s domestic dispute reference During cross examination of Dr Richey the defense attorney elicited the following testimony regarding the emergency room medical documentation Q Now there a lot of information contained here If we go to s the first page you narrated it Something about a domestic dispute A Yes sir Q Tell me where that information came from A That would have been what we call the current complaint as part of the history of present illness and so that information would have come from the patient and then any the EMS personnel emergency medical services personnel who brought him in may have contributed some of the information to that history of present illness M Q he wrote this so he could tell us Now Dr Melton would be where he got this information is that correct A 1 would hope so The defense attorney asked Dr Richey to again read the narrative regarding s defendant injuries that included the secondary to domestic dispute reference During cross examination the defense attorney asked Dr David Melton where the pertinent information in the medical report came from and he stated that it came from the patient Based on this response the defense moved for a mistrial arguing that defendant did not receive notice of a statement to the emergency room attendant In opposing the motion for mistrial the State noted that the record clearly shows that defendant had notice of the statements in the medical report specifically citing defendant pretrial motion in limine motion to suppress and s the rulings of this court and the Supreme Court regarding the motion to suppress Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 716B regulates discovery of statements made by defendant as follows Upon motion of the defendant the court shall order the district attorney to inform the defendant of the existence but not the contents of any oral confession or statement of any nature made by the defendant which the district attorney intends to offer in evidence at the trial with the information as to when where and to whom such oral confession or statement was made Under Article 71613 defendant is not entitled to the contents of the statement but only to notice of its existence as well as when where and to whom it was made The rules of discovery rules are intended to eliminate unwarranted prejudice arising from surprise testimony to permit the defense to meet the State case and s to allow proper assessment of the strength of its evidence in preparing a defense 7 State v Harris 2000 3459 La 2 812 So 612 617 In the event of a 02 26 2d discovery violation the court may order the party to permit the discovery grant a continuance order a mistrial on motion of defendant and prohibit the party from introducing into evidence the subject matter not disclosed or enter such other order other than dismissal as may be appropriate La C art 729 A P Cr 5A conviction will not be reversed on the basis of the State discovery violation s unless prejudice is shown Harris 812 So at 617 2d Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 768 provides Unless the defendant has been granted pretrial discovery if the state intends to introduce a confession or inculpatory statement in evidence it shall so advise the defendant in writing prior to beginning the state opening statement If it fails to do so a confession s inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence or An inculpatory statement under Article 768 is one made out of court after a crime has been committed admitting a fact circumstance or involvement which tends to establish guilt or from which guilt may be inferred State v Thames 95 2105 La App 1st Cir 9 681 So 480 484 writ denied 96 2563 La 96 27 2d 97 21 3 691 So 80 2d Mistrial is a drastic remedy and except in instances in which mistrial is mandatory is warranted only when trial error results in substantial prejudice to a defendant depriving him of a reasonable expectation of a fair trial State v Fisher 95 0430 La App 1 st Cir 5 673 So 721 725 26 writ denied 96 10 2d 961412 La 11 681 96 1 2d So 1259 Determination of the existence of unnecessary prejudice warranting a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge State v Manning 20031982 La 10 885 So 1044 1109 04 19 2d cert denied 544 U 967 125 S 1745 161 L 612 2005 S Ct 2d Ed 8 By its own terms Article 768 does not apply when the defendant has been granted pretrial discovery As the defendant acknowledges in his pro se brief in this case he was granted such discovery It is clear in this case that defendant had notice of the medical records and the statements they contained As noted by the trial court in denying the motion for mistrial defendant had equal access to the information at issue Given that defendant filed pretrial motions challenging the admissibility of the medical reports any reasonable argument that he had no notice of the statements is without merit Additionally the health care providerpatient privilege was in part the basis for defendant motion to suppress the medical s reports and the basis for his motion to exclude the physicians testimony Thus it is apparent that defendant was aware that the medical reports included communications between him and the doctors Considering the foregoing we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant motion s for mistrial DECREE For these reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence of defendant Darrell Williams CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED The emergency room record with the language in question was attached to the State Third s Supplemental Answer to Discovery Requests 3 As noted herein the defense attorney repeatedly drew attention to the challenged evidence 9
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.
