State Of Louisiana VS Andrew J. Roberts
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 KA 2248 STATE OF LOUISIANA 14LI LT1411 ANDREW J ROBERTS Judgment Rendered JUN 8 2012 On Appeal from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket No 488303 Honorable Peter J Garcia Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Covington Louisiana State of Louisiana and Kathryn W Landry Attorney for the State Baton Rouge Louisiana Lieu T Vo Clark Counsel for DefendantAppellant Mandeville Louisiana Andrew J Roberts BEFORE PETTIGREW McCLENDON AND WELCH 33 McCLENDON I The defendant Andrew 1 Roberts was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of second degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 and S 30 1 pled not guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict He moved for a new trial and for a post verdict judgment of He was sentenced to life imprisonment acquittal but the motions were denied at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence He now appeals contending the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and the trial court erred in denying his motion for a post verdict judgment of acquittal For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS The victim Ruby Ann Boland aged twentytwo months lived in a trailer with her mother Helen Teal and the defendant who was not the child father s next to Teal parents home in Slidell On April 1 2010 the victim was in the s care of the defendant while Teal was at work On that day the defendant brought the victim to Teal parents home to visit Teal mother Ruby Teal The s s victim was in normal condition when the defendant left the home with her Thereafter the defendant ran back to the home holding the victim in his arms According to Ruby Teal the victim arms were out and feet were hanging s She was gasping for air her eyes were rolled kind of up slightly open The defendant told Ruby Teal that the victim had fallen off the sofa The victim was transported to Northshore Regional Medical Center Ruby Teal followed the ambulance to the hospital but did not see the defendant there at any time she was present Thereafter she was informed that the victim was brain dead In his initial account of what happened to the victim the defendant claimed he brought her back to the trailer to change her on the sofa He stated he changed the victim diaper and left her on the sofa while he went to the s bathroom He claimed he heard a thump while he was in the bathroom and 2 returned to find the victim on the floor He stated he then ran to Ruby Teal s home with the victim The defendant denied seeing any bruises on the victim On April S 2010 the defendant changed his account of the incident He claimed the victim had been injured when he stood her up and she slid out the pants He then stated she hit her head on the ground after he was trying to shake her out the pants When confronted with the fact that his account of the incident was inconsistent with the lack of neck injury to the victim the defendant stated the victim head had hit the ground four or five times while he was trying s to shake her out of her pants On April 6 2010 when confronted by the injuries suffered by the victim the defendant claimed he had been playing with the victim and head butting her belly and she struck her head on the floor and started twitching when he bent over with her He then stated a drug dealer Mike had held him at gunpoint in the trailer grabbed the victim and hit her in the head because the defendant owed him money At trial the State presented testimony from St Tammany Parish Chief Deputy Coroner and Forensic Pathologist Dr Michael B DeFatta He performed an autopsy on the victim She had two recent bruises on her forehead She had an older bruise on her left cheek She had bruising on the bottom of her feet She also had a recent bruise on the left side of her rib cage She had a very large area of bruising extending from the very top of her head to the front of her head The bruising was of different gradations and different shapes Dr DeFatta testified the bruising was more consistent with multiple impacts rather than a single impact The victim had no skull fractures but hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage was present in her brain Dr DeFatta testified that sufficient trauma to the blood vessels in the brain would cause those vessels to rupture resulting in bleeding on top of the brain and under the arachnoid layer Hemorrhage was also present under the bruise on the left side of the victim Additionally hemorrhage was present in the optic nerves behind the victim s 3 eyes Dr DeFatta testified this hemorrhage was indicative of some type of rotational injury In Dr Defatta opinion the injuries to the victim head resulted from s s blunt force trauma He testified those injuries were inconsistent with the victim s falling from a sofa According to Dr DeFatta the injuries to the victim feet were also consistent with blunt force trauma i being hit by someone or e something He stated I never seen kids adults teenagers anyone that ve walked on rocks that had injuries like that on the bottom of their feet Dr DeFatta indicated the records of the victim clinical visits and hospital records s s revealed no history of seizure disorder He testified the victim cause of death was blunt force head trauma as a result of child abuse and her manner of death was homicide The defense presented testimony from Dr Thomas William Young a board certified forensic pathologist He indicated he was being paid 300 per hour for his services but not his opinion He testified It is my opinion made to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the child Ruby Boland had seizures epilepsy fits There are some children who are basically born and they s s develop problems with seizures In Dr Young opinion the victim cause of death was complications of a seizure and she died a natural death According to Dr Young the bleeding suffered by the victim was due to damage to her brain as a result of lack of oxygen He indicated the bruising on the victim body resulted from her being moved around at the hospital after her s s brain was damaged He claimed the victim mother stated she had not noticed the injuries until the victim was moved to the hospital He stated the bruising to the bottom of the victim feet resulted from the doctors at the hospital using a s s reflex hammer to see if the victim had any reflexes He noted the victim skull was not broken and testified it only makes any kind of common sense that if you basically have trauma to the head you going to break the skull re 51 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment of error number 1 the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction In assignment of error number 2 he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal He combines the assignments of error arguing the physical evidence failed to support either his confession or the State stheory of the case 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 sidentity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana circumstantial evidence test which states in s part assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove in State order to convict every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded v Wright 98 0601 La 1 Cir 2 730 So 485 486 writs denied App 99 19 2d 99 0802 La 10 748 So 1157 000895 La 11 773 So 732 99 29 2d 00 17 2d quoting LSAR 15 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 element of the crime Wright 730 So at 487 2d Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm to LSA R S A 1 30 14 Specific criminal intent is that state of mind that exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act LSAR 14 S 10 1 Though intent is a question of fact it need not be proven as a fact It may be inferred R from the circumstances of the transaction Specific intent may be proven by direct evidence such as statements by a defendant or by inference from circumstantial evidence such as a defendant actions or facts depicting the s circumstances the fact finder Specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by State v Henderson 991945 La 1 Cir 6 762 App 00 23 2d So 747 751 writ denied 00 2223 La 6 793 So 1235 01 15 2d Second degree murder is also the killing of a human being when the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of cruelty to juveniles LSA R 14 S 30 2 A 1 Cruelty to juveniles is the intentional or criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect by anyone seventeen years of age or older of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to said child LSA R 14 S 93 1 A Once the crime itself has been established a confession alone may be used to identify the accused as the perpetrator State v Carter 521 So 2d 553 555 La App 1st Cir 1988 After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that any 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 all of the elements of second degree murder and the defendant identity as the s perpetrator of that offense The verdict rendered in this case indicates the jury rejected the defense theory that the victim died of natural causes 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 1 Cir writ denied 514 So 126 2d App 2d La 1987 No such hypothesis exists in the instant case The verdict rendered also indicates the jury accepted the testimony of Dr DeFatta and rejected the testimony of Dr Young This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder determination of guilt The trier s All 11 of fact may 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 State v Lofton 96 1429 La 1 Cir 3 691 So 1365 1368 writ App 97 27 2d denied 97 1124 La 10 701 So 1331 Further we cannot say that 97 17 2d the jury determination was irrational s presented to them under the facts and circumstances See State v Ordodi 06 0207 La 11 946 So 06 29 2d 654 662 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 09 21 rationally rejected by the jury State v Calloway 072306 La 1 1 3d So 417 418 per curiam This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons we affirm defendant sconviction and sentence CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 7
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.
